-------
US 113 Planning Study
I. Vegetation and Wildlife
1. Vegetation
Vegetation within the study area primarily consists of plant species associated with forested
areas, wetlands, farmlands, meadows and landscaped and turfed areas associated with
developed commercial, recreational, institutional and residential land uses.
The forested vegetation habitats vary from bottomland floodplain areas dominated by species
tolerant of semi-saturated and prolonged saturated and inundated conditions, to gently sloping
and level uplands consisting of species tolerant of drier soil environments.
The forest density in general is variable with some areas having a fairly dense overstory,
subcanopy, shrub and herbaceous cover while in other areas the subcanopy trees, shrubs and
herbaceous species were sparse or lacking. Some forest areas were logged at sometime in the
past and it is within these areas that dense stands of early growth loblolly pine, deciduous tree
saplings and various grass and flowering ground cover species occur.
The upland forests are dominated primarily by red maple (Acer rubrum), white oak (Quercus
alba), southern red oak (Q.falcata), tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), American holly (Ilex opaca), sweet pepper-bush (Clethra alnifolia), arrow-wood
(Viburnum dentatum), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), common poison-ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans) and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
Three specimen trees were identified and the size and quality documented: a southern red oak
with 34.5 inch Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), the trunk is in good condition and top crown
is generally well shaped with minimal dead wood; two tulip trees, one 41.2 inch DBH and one
43 inch DBH, have trunks in good condition with fairly well-shaped crowns and minimal dead
wood. These trees are located approximately 150 feet northeast of Poplartown Branch and
approximately 60 feet west of US 113.
The bottomland forests are dominated primarily by several species also found in the upland
forests which include red maple, loblolly pine, arrow-wood, sweet pepper-bush, Japanese
honeysuckle as well as sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica).
Wetlands which occur within or adjacent to streams and within floodplains or other areas
where a prolonged high water table sustains plant species which are able to adapt and
reproduce in soils which may be saturated or inundated for long periods of time. Such species
include: silky dogwood (Comus amomum), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), seaside alder
(Alnus maritmd), narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia), spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens
capensis), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), Sedges (Carex sp.) and skunk-cabbage
(Symplocarpus foetidus).
111-67
-------
US 113 Planning Study
A few fallow fields are interspersed between the farmed areas, landscaped areas and forests
and are dominated by various grasses as well as flowering ground cover and shrubby species.
Plant species occurring in the fallow field areas include: meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis),
Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), sour dock (Rumex crispus), fragrant goldenrod (Euthania
tenuifolia), common pokeweed (Phytolacca americand) and daisy fleabane (Erigeron
strigosus).
Vegetation on the fanned areas consists primarily of crops such as soybean (Glycine max),
com (Zea mays) and wheat (Triticum aestivum).
The developed areas contain a wide variety of native, naturalized and ornamental trees, shrubs
and herbaceous plants. Included are lawns and other turfed areas, hedge rows, foundation
plantings and flower beds.
2. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Based on vegetation, three major habitat types within the study area have been identified:
terrestrial or upland, wetland, and aquatic. Many of the wildlife species found in the study
area are generalists and use the variety of habitats found in the area. Some species, however,
have more specific habitat requirements.
The southern study area parallels the existing alignment of US 113 and impacts many existing
treelines and fringe portions of major and minor forested areas. These forested tracts are
interrupted by croplands, commercial and residential properties and meadows. Several of the
forested areas are extensive enough that they could be used for safe havens and breeding by
many neotropical migrant and other interior dwelling species.
a. Terrestrial Habitat
In the developed areas, wildlife species able to adapt and coexist with humans are commonly
found. Certain forest dwelling mammal species will also occasionally venture onto developed
and cropland areas in search of food. Bird species expected to commonly use the developed,
cropland and meadow areas, as well as the forested areas, include: Downy woodpecker
(Picoides pubessens), Mourning dove (Zenaida maccrouna), American robin (Turdus
migratorius), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), northern mocking bird (Mimus
polyglottos), common grackle (Quiscalus quisculd), and American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos). Mammal and reptile species include: red fox (Vulpes vulpes), white-tailed
deer (Odozoileus virginianus), woodchuck (Marmota monox), racoon (Procyon later), gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern chipmonk (Tamias striatus), Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), and black rat snake (Elaphe obsolete obsoleta).
7/7-58
-------
l/S 123 Planning Study
b. Aquatic and Wetland Habitat
The wetland habitats within and adjacent to both the north and south study areas are varied
consisting of forested, scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands as well as riverine stream systems.
The stream systems were identified and are described in Section ffl-F and the wetland systems
are discussed in Section ffi-H. The streams crossed within the study area are primarily very
slow moving with sand and mud bottoms, and the channels are mostly non-vegetated, other
than plants occurring on the adjacent slopes which consist of emergent and scrub-shrub
species. Palustrine deciduous forests often occur on the adjacent flood plains.
The Pocomoke River is widely known for the quality of its sport fishery. The tributary
streams within the project's southern study area are generally small and offer limited sport
fishing potential, they do however, provide important spawning grounds which support the
Pocomoke River fishery.
Bird species which are dependent on these habitats include: belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyori),
great blue heron (Ardea herodias), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), wood duck (Aix sponsa),
and red-winged black bird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Mammal, reptile and amphibian species
also utilizing these habitats include: muskrat (Ondatra zibethius), nutria (Myocaster coypus),
bullfrog (Rana catesbeiand), common musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus) and northern water
snake (Nerodia sipedori).
Streams and ponds within and adjacent to the study area are considered to be aquatic habitats
within which shallow depths permit the dense growth of certain submerged vascular plant
species, which are either attached to the substrate or float freely in the water above the bottom
or on the surface.
The stream systems which occur within both the Pocomoke River area and the Coastal
Drainage Areas provide food sources and spawning environments for migratory fish species
such as white perch (Morone americand), yellow perch (Peraflavescens), herring (Alosa sp.)
and alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) as well as resident species including: large-mouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), chain pickerel (Esox niger), blue-spotted sunfish (Ennea conthus
gloriosus), and pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus). Many of the upland species such as
American robin, northern mockingbird, gray catbird, red fox, white-tailed deer, racoon,
Virginia opossum and black rat snake also utilize the wetland and aquatic habitats.
3. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
Coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Wolflin, 1995) has revealed that there
are no known Federally listed endangered or threatened species under their jurisdiction within
the study area. Coordination with the Maryland DNR Wildlife and Heritage Division,
however, (Dintaman, Jr., 1995, Davidson, 1996) indicates that there are several State rare,
threatened and endangered plant species and a finfish species subject to potential impact
within the study area.
7/7-69
-------
US 113 Planning Study
The DNR Wildlife and Heritage Division has recorded 20 State rare, threatened and
endangered plant species occurring within one mile of the southern section of the US 113
roadway study area. Within the immediate study area, four of these plant species are known
to occur. The four species include: seaside alder (Alnus maritima), swamp beggar-ticks
(Bidens discoidea) and variable yelloweyed-grass (Xyris difformis), state status, rare and low
water-milfoil (Myriophyllum humile) which is state endangered. On July 17, 1996 a field
survey was conducted in the effort to verify the existence and location of the four species.
Only the seaside alder was found and identified near the roadway.
The DNR also lists a finfish species, the blackbanded sunfish (Enneaconthus chaetadon),
which may occur in Gary Branch located north of Berlin (Dintaman Jr., 1995). The sunfish
population is thought to be limited or declining in the State such that it may be threatened in
the future and therefore is in need of conservation. No surveys were undertaken to verify the
occurrence of the sunfish in Gary Branch or any other stream in the study area.
J. Air Quality
The US 113 project is located in Worcester County, which is not listed as a nonattainment area for
carbon monoxide and ozone. Therefore, with the exception of construction procedures requirements,
the conformity requirements of 23CFR770 do not apply to this project. The project is also in an area
where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures.
Therefore, the conformity procedures in the Federal Register on November 24, 1993 do not apply
to this project.
The air quality analysis serves as support documentation for the project and has been prepared in
accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), and Maryland SHA guidelines. The US 113 project is located in Worcester
County, MD, which is in attainment for carbon monoxide and ozone. A CO attainment are is
defined in Section 186 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA '90) as a region that has
a design value of less that 9.1 ppm. Therefore, with the exception of construction procedures
requirements, the conformity requirements of 23CFR770 do not apply to this project. Carbon
monoxide (CO) impacts were analyzed as the accepted indicator of vehicle-generated air pollution.
1. Methodology
The EPA's CAL3QHC dispersion model was used to predict CO concentrations for air quality
sensitive receptors for the year of completion (2000) and the design year (2020). These
detailed analyses predict air quality impacts from CO vehicular emissions for both the No
Build and Dualization Alternatives for each analysis year. Modeled 1-hour and 8-hour
average CO concentrations were added to background CO concentrations for comparison to
the State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (S/NAAQS).
7/7-70
-------
PS 113 Planning Study
In order to calculate the total concentration of CO which occurs at a particular receptor site
during worst case meteorological conditions, the background levels are considered in addition
to the levels directly attributed to the facility under consideration. The background levels
were derived from the application of rollback methodology to on-site monitoring conducted
by the Maryland Department of the Environment, Air Management Administration at their
Essex Site during the period of 1994.
2. Description of Air Sensitive Receptors
Sixty-five air receptor locations were selected to represent air quality sensitive locations
within the study area. These locations, representing residences, places of worship, and
historic properties, were selected to represent the worst case conditions for air quality impacts
associated with the proposed project. The locations of the air quality sensitive sites presented
on Figures HI-ISA through 13D, were verified by a site visit in November, 1996.
3. Background CO Levels
Background CO, in parts per million (PPM) were determined to be 2.6 ppm for a one-hour
period and 0.9 ppm for an eight-hour period. These CO concentrations are lower than the
S/NAAQS 1-hour CO concentration of 35 ppm and the 8-hour CO concentration of 9 ppm,
at any air quality receptor location, in either analysis year.
K. Noise Quality
1. Design Noise Level/Activity Relationships
The design noise levels indicated in Table ffl-17 have been used to determine highway traffic
noise impacts associated with different land uses or activities in existence at the time of
project development. In addition, the design noise levels have been used to determine where
further consideration of noise mitigation will be required during the final design of the project.
The applicable activity category for developed land uses adjacent to US 113 is category "B"
for which the Lcq (Exterior) design noise level is 67 dB A.
2. Existing Noise Environment
Ambient Noise Measurements
In order to determine the existing noise characteristics present within the corridors of the
various build alternatives being considered, ambient noise measurements were recorded at 65
receptor locations during November, 1996. Results of the ambient measurements at the
receptor locations chosen, indicate a variety of contributing sources to the local noise
environment. These include bkds chirping, rustling leaves, dogs barking, and trains, in
addition to traffic-related noise from US 113. The local street network within the study area
111-71
-------
US 113 Planning Study
has minimal influence on the respective communities. Major arterials intersecting with US
113 also contribute significantly to the noise environment for select sensitive receptor sites,
however, they do not influence the overall result of the proposed improvements.
Description of Noise Receptor Sites and Recorded Ambient Leq Noise Levels
The results of the ambient noise measurements are presented in Table ffl-18. Sixty-five
receptor sites, representing residences, places of worship, and historic sites, were selected to
represent the worst case conditions for noise quality impacts associated with the proposed
project. Where feasible, sites were selected to represent groupings of residences.
Additionally, sites were chosen where the proposed alternate would be significantly close to
the noise sensitive area, and also in areas where normal exterior human activity would occur.
The location of the noise receptor sites are shown on Figures HI-ISA through 13D
Table 111-17: Noise Abatement Criteria, Activity Relationships in CFR 772 *
Activity
Category
A
B
C
D
E
Design Noise
Level Leq
57dBA
(Exterior)
67dBA
(Exterior)
72dBA
(Exterior)
—
52dBA
(Interior)
Description of Activity Category
Tracts of land in which serenity and quietest of extraordinary significance and serve
an important public need, and where the preservation of those qualities is essential
if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Such areas could include
amphitheaters, particular parks or portions of parks, or open spaces which are
dedicated or recognized by appropriate local officials for activities requiring special
qualities of serenity and quiet.
Residences, motels, hotels, public, meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries,
hospitals, picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, and parks.
Developed lands, properties or activities not included in categories A and B above.
Undeveloped lands.
Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries,
hospitals and auditoriums.
* Adapted from Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, FHWA - 1988
7/7-72
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table 111-18: Sensitive Receptor Sites and Ambient Noise Levels
SiteNo.^
1-1
1-2
1-3
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
4-1
4 -.2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
..,..^v..;v*-VVV:'^V.:ir&^
•.V
Residence - 3932 Market Street (MD 394)
Residence - 4624 Snow Hill Road (MD 12)
Residence - 47 1 2 Washington Street
Residence - 6 1 08 Public Landing Road
Residence - 5658 Worcester Highway (US 1 1 3)
Residence - 5809 Worcester Highway (US1 13)
Snow Hill Mennonite Church - Worcester Highway (US1 13)
Residence - 6074 Worcester Highway (US 11 3)
Residence - 6224 Worcester Highway (US1 13)
Residence - 6369 Worcester Highway (US1 13)
Residence - Mason Bros. (Perdue) - Worcester Highway (US 1 1 3)
Residence - 6570 Worcester Highway (US1 13)
Residence - 6641 Worcester Highway (US1 13)
Residence - 6858 Basket Switch Road
Residence - 7016 Worcester Highway (US 1 13)
Residence on Langmaid Road with no address posted; 250 feet west of US 1 1 3
Residence - 8412 Langmaid Road
Residence - 7170 Worcester Highway (US 1 13)
Residence on Worcester Highway (US 1 13) with no address posted; 2000 feet
south of Gunning Club Road
Residence on Worcester Highway (US 1 13) with no address posted; 450 feet
south of Croppers Island Road
Residence - 9 1 1 8 Croppers Island Road
Residence - 7575 Worcester Highway (US 1 13)
Residence - 7620 Worcester Highway (US 1 13)
Residence - 9314 Goody Hill Road
Residence - 7809 Worcester Highway (US 1 13)
... Ambient Noise Level
''i*iW-i±(&Ay:.f^:>
65
56
59
58
60
58 '
63
64
67
63
66
65
71
62
58
56
61
63
58
64
64
58
61
58
60
7/7-73
09-
-------
£75113 Planning Study
Table 111-18: Sensitive Receptor Sites and Ambient Noise Levels, continued
Site No.
4-8
4-9
4-10.
4-11
4-12
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-9
6-10
6-11
6-12
6-13
6-14
6-15
6-16
6-17
6-18
6-19
. ' "•.;'.•''..": -. '^-•••••'•ReC(BptOTDeSCriptiob!''"^;^§&-¥i:::-;..''.^:v^...:i'>-i:/
." - • ••'.:-''-.1 . . ; - .•; ••"v-w;; ••••.:?;'• :. '••":.'• •;..•
Residence - 7924 Worcester Highway (US 1 13)
Residence - 8028 Worcester Highway (US 113)
Residence - 81 1 Shire Drive
Residence on Worcester Highway (US 1 13) with no address posted; 750 .feet
north of Shire Drive
Residence on Worcester Highway (US 1 13) with no address posted; 300 feet
south of Ironshire Station Road
Residence - 10347 Worcester Highway (US 113)
Residence- 10421 Worcester Highway (US 113)
Residence - 10485 Worcester Highway (US 1 13)
Residence- 1 0494 Worcester Highway (US 113)
Residence on Worcester Highway (US 1 13) with no address posted; 450 feet
south of Carey Road
Vic's Store - US 1 13; 125 feet south of Jones Road (Historic Site)
Residence on Carey Road with no address posted; 500 ft. west of US 1 13
Residence - 10239 Carey Road
Residence - 10680 Worcester Highway (US 1 13)
Residence - 10804 Worcester Highway (US 113)
Calvary Chape! - Victory Lane
Residence - 1 1047 Worcester Highway (US 1 13)
Residence - 1 1 206 Worcester Highway (US 1 13) (Historic Site)
Residence - 1 1217 Worcester Highway (US 1 13)
Residence - 1 1241 Worcester Highway (US 113)
St. Martin's Church - Worcester Highway (US 1 13);300 ft. north of MD 589
(Historic Site)
Residence - 1 1628 Worcester Highway (US 113) (Historic Site)
Residence - 10129 Pitts Road
Showell Methodist Church - corner of Pitts Road and Church Road
. Ambient Noise Level
(L^faBA)
63
64
58
63
65
63
69
69
64
63
72
59
58
67
60
52
67
54
65
66
65
65
65
65
111-74
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table 111-18: Sensitive Receptor Sites and Ambient Noise Levels, continued
' SlteNb.;^
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
7-7
7-9
7-10
7-11
7-12
7-13
7-14
7-15
7-16
,::,
Residence on Worcester Highway (US 1 13) with no address posted; 500 feet
south of Shingle Landing Road
Residence - 1 01 22 Shingle Landing Road
Residence - 10204 Shingle Landing Road
Residential Property - 10045 Worcester Highway (US 113)
Residential Property - 12235 Worcester Highway (US 1 13)
Residence - 12538 Old Stage Road
Residence - 12558 Old Stage Road
Mausoleum - 1800 feet north of Bishopville Road
Residence - 12914 Worcester Highway (US 1 13)
Residence - 1 3 1 02 Worcester Highway (US 1 1 3)
Residence on Worcester Highway (US 1 13) with no address posted; 400 feet
north of MD 610
Residence - 1 3222 Worcester Highway (US 1 1 3)
Elk's Lodge 2173-on Worcester Highway (US 1 13) - no address posted; 1050
feet south of Hotel Road
Residence - 13419 Morris Road
Transpeninsular Line Marker (Historic Site)
^ \. Ambient I^oise Leydl^ ,
73
55
59
60
68
56
53
61
69
70
69
70
72
62
65
7/7-75
-------
V
Legend
— — Dualization on Existing Alignment
1'1 • Noise Receptor Site
i>*
\
)
FOREST
\
\
KEY MAP
US 113 PLANNING STUDY
Air and Noise Receptor
Locations
SOUTHERN STUDY AREA
Urylmd
StttaKghny
MnOnMnOon
April 1997
Figure
IIH3A
-------
ALTERNATIVE 3S\
«£T
US 113 PLANNING STUDY
Legend
_ Dualization on Existing Alignment
1*1 • Noise Receptor Site
A.
Air and Noise Receptoi
Locations
SOUTHERN STUDY AREA
Uvytencf
State Hlghwty
April 1997
Fig
III-'
-------
- '"• I/
J •£ -isS^^- i^'^f•'••. *
• **x?> ••'O* x s-
: "•^•/!Vk<'\J» W ^> ,
US 113 PLANNING STUDY
Air and Noise Receptor
Locations
SOUTHERN STUDY AREA
«— — Dualization on Existing Alignment
1*n • Noise Receptor Site
-------
DELAWARE
. __ •^••••
MARYLAND
BISHOPVILLE
«. ••4*-^^f-''
U....::>^-v.-—-A Vi.;i. ^-!f\.
ALTERNATE
MODIFIED
^1
ALTERNATE SNl^../
US 113 PLANNING STUDY
IT —. Dualtzation on Existing Alignment
. « . «• Dualteation on New Alignment
1-1 • Ndse Receptor Site
-------
US 113 Planning Study
L. Visual Quality
5rom a recreational standpoint, it is common for Americans to drive for pleasure along scenic roads.
Additional mobile viewers of the landscape include commuters to work and truck drivers, among
others. Stationary viewers of visual landscape include residents, farmers, business employees,
:onsumers, and tourists.
1. Existing Visual Environment
The topography of the study area is relatively flat and the viewsheds are large. No scenic
vistas or visually sensitive receptors exist within the study area.
The existing study area is predominantly rural farmland with small residential areas and
communities scattered along the project limits. The visual landscape in the study area is
dominated by these farms, mostly chicken farms, with vegetation bordering the roadway.
2. Methodology
Viewsheds were determined by review of land use mapping and field reconnaissance
throughout the study area to assist in the evaluation of the visual quality of the area. A
viewshed is "the surface area visible from a given viewpoint or series of viewpoints; it is also
the area from which that viewpoint or series of viewpoints may be seen" (FHWA, 1981). It
may also be defined as, "a tool for identifying the views that a project could actually affect"
(FHWA, 1981).
VI. Municipal, Industrial and Residual Waste Sites
1. Initial Site Assessment
Municipal, industrial and residual wastes and other environmentally sensitive materials may
pose a considerable threat to human or environmental health if improperly treated, stored, or
disposed of. An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was conducted to identify and inventory
municipal, industrial, and private properties which are known to or suspected to contain waste
materials. The investigation consisted of a database search, property records research, field
reconnaissance, and potential liability determination. The following databases were used
during the background research:
• National Priority List (NPL)
Delisted NPL (NPL Deletions)
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS-TSD)
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS)
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System (CERC-NFRAP)
111-76
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS)
• Permitted Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST)
• RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System (RAATS)
• Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System (HMDR.S)
• PCB Activity Database System (PADS)
• Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System (TRIS)
• Federal Superfund Liens (NPL Liens)
• Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA)
• Former Manufactured Gas Sites (Coal Gas)
• EPA Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)
• State Hazardous Waste Site (SHWS)
The search of available Federal and state databases was conducted in accordance with the
specific requirements of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard
practice for Environmental Site Assessment (E 1527-94). Full documentation for all sites
found within the ASTM-specified study radii is located in the Initial Site Assessment prepared
for this project in December 1995. A review of the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE) Hazardous Waste Management Section's files was made in conjunction with this
study.
2. Preliminary Field Reconnaissance Results
In general, the corridor is characterized agricultural and residential land uses. Many of the
residential properties use fuel oil for home heating. This however, represents a minimal threat
to the project and unless other factors of concern were noted, these residential sites were not
included in the potential waste inventory.
The preliminary field reconnaissance revealed 23 potentially contaminated sites within the
southern and northern study areas. Sites were ranked, based upon the perceived potential to
pose a waste materials liability to the proposed project. The rankings are high, moderate, and
low potential liability. Factors influencing the ranking of perceived potential threats include:
• The nature of the site activity,
• History of site use,
• Location of the site in relation to the study area,
• The observed condition of the site,
• Significance of database records for the site,
• Whether the site has a history of controlled material spills, hazardous
materials handling, or waste production.
Sites that possess a high potential for liability are sites that either via direct observation,
database records, or site use history present some potential to contain contamination. Sites
that possess a moderate potential usually are included based on current or historic site use or
documentation, but no evidence of potential contamination was revealed during the ISA.
7/7.77
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Sites that possess a low potential are included based on current or historic site use or
documentation, however evidence gathered during the ISA revealed little likelihood of
contamination. The analysis of the databases and preliminary field reconnaissance data that
these sites may warrant further investigation and possible sampling and analysis. Three sites
have a high potential for liability and warrant formal Phase I study and will probably require
Phase n investigation. Sixteen sites possess a moderate potential for liability and while
needing formal Phase I study will probably not require a Phase n investigation. Four
additional sites have a low liability potential and should not require any additional
investigation after the formal Phase I studies. Table HI-19 lists the identified potential waste
sites with the nature of the contamination and potential for liability. The locations of these
sites are shown on Figures III-14A through 14D. More detailed information concerning the
assessment methodology and findings is contained in the Hazardous Waste Initial Site
Assessment (Gannett Fleming, 1995).
An area containing drums was identified by the US Army Corps of Engineers during wetland
field reviews. This area was not identified as a site during preparation of the ISA. There are
no records of waste material sites or source events at the identified location. The contents of
the drums is unknown. If this area would be impacted by proposed expansion activity, then
this location should be added to the sites to receive Phase I site investigations. The potential
risk posed by the drums can be characterized at that time. This site, identified as site 24, has
been added to the list of potential waste sites.
111-78
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IH-19: Potential Wastes Sites
Site
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-.-•'. „' '__,", , Potential S|te,,_^^;Sg^>x
' ."'•-•"- i^'^r-^^t-'V^w^i^&^tllP
Ocean Designs Fiberglass and Boat Works
Cross Roads Carry Out
Abandoned Rendering Plant
TMT Design Co. 12829 Worcester
Highway
Sharpgas Propane Tank Enclosure
Open Field
Kary Asphalt
Perdue Farms Hatchery #7
Hammonds Store
Showell Poultry Processing Plant
Davis Electric
Vic's Country Store
Sandbar Marine
9941 Deer Park
The Little Country Store Deli/Gas Station
Newark Station Strip Stores
Air Illusions Paint Shop
Custom Screen Printing Company
Town of Newark Sewage Treatment Ponds
Residential/Manufacturing Property
Landfill Office
Worcester County Roads Maintenance
Facility
Duck-in Convenience Store
Station 23 15±
^g,Natare,of the Potential Contamination ,. :
Boat repair, paint, solvent, petroleum products storage
Possible former gasoline pumping station
Former industrial site; abandoned tanker trucks,
process vessels, and 55-gallon drums found on site
Vehicle storage
Propane storage and 55-gallon drums of solvents
Possible former mobile home manufacturing site;
rusted paint cans and a 55-gallon drum found on site
Active asphalt processing facility
Above-ground and underground storage tanks
Gasoline pumps, a small repair garage, propane tank,
fuel oil tank, and several 55-gallon drums on site
Underground storage tanks
Old gasoline pump
Former gasoline pumping station
Boat repair; paint, solvent, petroleum products storage
55-gallon drums
Former Gasoline pumping station
Gasoline pumping station and kerosene pump; offices
of Ocean Petroleum
Paint and solvent storage
Inflammable materials storage
Sewage treatment ponds and chlorine storage
Vehicle storage and gasoline pumping
Underground storage tanks
Vehicle maintenance and storage, materials storage,
and fuel pumping
Gasoline pumping station
Drums of unknown content
Potential
Liability
Moderate
Low
High
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
TBD*
* to be determined
7/7-79
-------
\
r*
FOREST \
US 113 PLANNING STUDY
"X STATE
Potential Waste
Site Locations
SOUTHERN STUDY AREA
April 1997
Figure
III-14A
-------
,r / -v.n
US 113 PLANNING STUDY
Potential Waste
Site Locations
SOUTHERN STUDY AREA
-------
mQNSHIRE
o •'ooogooo 39Sj}|{.5:|00
'• •
US 113 PLANNING STUDY
Potential Waste
Site Locations
SOUTHERN STUDY AREA
Figure
III-14C
Uarylsnd
StatffHgtnmy
Administration
-------
MARYLAND
BISHQPVILLE
i
__--! 1 -,
1000 2000 3000 40
OBHBC=Z3i
SCALE IN FEET
-ij
SB 6T3S3IS SlS^r. ''~'--
' X ^ -^^ '' -X*
US 113 PLANNING STUDY
' NSGKS uEEDJ
X & V !•
Potential Waste
Site Locations
NORTHERN STUDY AREA
Muytarxf
SW»H!ghw*y
Admlntftrmtion
-------
IV.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
US 113 Planning Study
Snow Hill, Maryland to Delaware State Line
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
-------
ijiiiiiii &rflW' ?;ll:;!fl!:';:;K
:,! i,,:,; 1,1 ,\,LuJi ip ,, s ,::, i •;; ,;„,, 4. iLi ii ;i in LI. .11 ,£hirIIIL .1 i "^,;"!« iinLhiiii. 111 <\I:LL, 1 <:ate„:
J'..M.'.VW ;":^i!^
* *
ilii:
Jiii
: HI Jill
II L^^
,;,: ^t-ll^L iiiiii ii-iiiii ; ili ,;; u iiiMi lit iU L "j titjjia aZi^i: i,=
tOMFi^ HI i!" [Sj-il f*!t 1 1^^ WM W^W
ii
ii^M i'li'M
:i=^^
TFSi^PR? "^Wl- W^i i;;^^ ":
I I I i
I i
; i,,: ; i !i ; ,;,; i; ,,{,;; j \ ; 1,1 ; ; ; , ; ig; ; i
si ii ij, LI i :,£ ,iu ; i, i, i,,'i,i,, iiiiiiiiii !• iji «: i
,-' . • ;;':; :t !!• '.V „,:,'. Jl ,'".. i.,.!,, I. 11,; ..':!„ 1 1. *> ,:- (I ", • l! ,
; iiiiiii , iii
!^^
m
H
I
.,, Ji 'iiva"1* jll mi,-,!'-; .'! wi! f, -s. .Ji; i;.;£fr ,':f V:.. *> ' T" ',i' 1|i I'I1
!,, :. .{MO I'"T I Illlii t' "'iii'"!,"' ,<'IT mi, T, IF Iii ,i ' i ' »i V s • <' • i:-!V:! "'!' "'. '"!!;;'; i, I!; ,„' 'fy -fl, 'v '. l\ ;v . • "i;;:, r. >!' 'i «K> ;w, • ** . "I J"
,; ;; ;;„;, i^j, ;, ,; i, I, :,ii Si^ i| ', i ,b ^& iitiii i '^^ - ! '» <4-ii« -i- « 4-i;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^1^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: : :: iJi i i i: - :::ai i,i .::, ::, aiL : : i , i, i i ,: iiii ililii : i: : iii i, , ,i :,iii i: li lui
111!!!1!
i
; i,, i-aL- iiii,!;:,,,! , Jaiit: aiis :K^ ;',, tiJoi^. ii'jbi^^ ^L :,i i:,,::,; its iiii,!^ 1.,:^^ i u,!^ !& i.': ii^ t i.
, i. , „ ; ii i, ; :|ii.i ; ill.;; ii,,!! ;„„ ^ i ,,i,.,,,,ii i, ,„ ii ,; ii.;, iiii,; ^ i i i,
ii | i '; ,iii ••'.:.!• i •>'*''i'.i:'iii;:'^,1.'"'(• J,'., [,., .ii:p'^msAKi^AIfii'i' ',::' i,:.lit:ij'iKJ'-r ,.,.fef. •; ;;!iii|fli
JL ; .ij"]' j |, j:, | ii'iiiij.ii iiniii jii;;,! isiuj ;; MIJ, ; i j....!!.!!..:' hj, j\ Lm'\ |;| |i i.lllh ill,!;;;! L,; Iil,i;,ill,,;;,i ;Lii ,il,| il,|,,,| ii iii, l,,,l;l,,,i li;;i,,;,;,,,,i,llll;,i; I,!,,,;,,;, ,1.1 Jl,,i,l 1 111 lli.i:,
^
iiiiii ii
il iii i i i i ii i. i iii ii iii iii iiiii • ill iiiiiii iiiiiiii i! i iiiiii iiiii i ii ! ii ii iiiiiii iiiii ii iii iiii i i! iiii i
ijj.,'!,' ' ,i"i'''!i"i': "i jjif ! ii!'Il:li1!i.|l||,iiv"|i. Illji'i",!!:;, i ,i'i,'i, '•„ '..;,.,'. 'I'vijii.' ilif'p'!'^ ; !»!'. nVii'', ';||'i|iii| -I F" i'i"1 r"1'""'!'1"';:!' '"''"' iirth'iii'1' \,:Mi',i|iii*Is
i *„: •, ", '" • !'„„» P' if iji | >ti :•,''': ,,„ W, I*'! • ' • v, '«• •' i: s,; • »",';, • ]\ii,!L |,,, i, {•- /I1 • V i:, r 11,,:)! •! • •, li•] „' • ,„ • ,>•' ;r',,, •*, f • -; • • !i, • •, | \A
iii;;;;^^^^^
, : i i I:::!; j ;„ ; in :„;::!: ,; »,:;' ^u i liili:i:i: ;„ ; i ; U : i i,:,!;,,,:,,;;;::,!;,:!;,,,,!, ,„; :i :a::: j : :, L.
i i i iiim i i
S !'',|::; ••.•,;••:;;• H:'• Jj •• a V ••: ''"'"•" •'•'.•IJ-1 i'"*: •(« \,'v ""', -'i('' ''l "'"' ''W
] "I.*':!1": '*X'i'.W-*y,> >" : ^,:;'',r"|H,>:,1'.(;i1iv.1r-,r;i'"'>.:J.'' 'ii- " •!*•;;
I vii';i;-;;.!;i,r^;-!t3p.'ii''ti:';'••;'!•••;.,•';" fS'^f^1,^:. •! Ji'/'ii ffiMSPt iM.
•i^f jfii:;;:;!; *l!'ji:»?f ^^mf ww |
I'ljj^^ ! iiiilifillili :i^^ !j|iiiiiiii| I: 1: il,!,,',;,:;!,:;!;;,:,!;,,,,,, ;!;, '!!!i:,,h,r:a!,Ll i!i!',|ii,i ii:,,!,;'!! !|lll: ! ';!:,,l!lii4:l,ll,,,!i ' :;:"±iLii,iili;jjiJ:,;Lii;!!HJi|,,,:L,! :,ilt,,s il ]j:!,,;j,,3!
i
:iii||::|ii:::|:i:|E::iili|iii|ii|lill : i ; i |||E i pii i |::|;i||| :||ii:| in: ::, i::||ia::i;i; | i
1*1 lif If;" iii S ;?T il tfe "'"
I iiii
iii iiiiiiii
. .. -.,•
iiii "M ; Si! i I 'A :,:= 2M| lliiJ £ II M& 'MKi fcl: M
^£. 1S& ii i:i,i n,ii L t&, ii iiiiii, ii,:ii i,:.:i,:lii: ij Kiiii-ii iiii iiiii Li iiii i-iii i-liiiii i,iin,:i i^ '^M
ii i - ;l j ii ill i| iiiiiiiK il i ii iiiii iiiiiiiiii iii iiiii li l i i iiiiiiiii I; Iiiiiii ii iiii ii i
•;'';;! '•"'-^-'' i1;1;::,f ;!'':" lit"!•;;' :'\'";,;i;ti|',;';;•!'" :<'"'"''":''';' ¥;";;,'••' :\ "!'!,''•'''f'*!'i
i ! !H"'II! "'""H"'! ; I1'!""'"""!"'"'if !"'" I1'1! f!1! !!'M'« *ni' iiJiTiRli'i ; S™ «*»I»H»N i»»; ii|i»»!"4'
ife
-nil;.!: ;i,!'.iiiiiii! : ai.;',.
-------
US 113 Planning Study
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The environmental consequences of the alternatives under consideration are described in this chapter
of the DEIS, as well as a discussion of the consequences of avoidance and minimization of these
impacts. Mitigation measures are also discussed where appropriate. The extent of impacts
discussed in this chapter, as well as further opportunities to avoid and minimize impacts, will be
refined during preliminary engineering, should a build alternative be selected.
A. Traffic and Transportation Network
Worcester County's transportation system is dominated by a combination of federal, state and county
roads. US 113, the major north-south route serving the County, accommodates a wide range of
vehicular traffic, including rural agricultural/residential trips, commercial trips, recreational trips,
and through trips. Bus service consists of numerous school bus trips and demand response rural
transit operated by the County's Commission on Aging. As discussed in Chapter m, Section A, the
extensive poultry industry throughout the Eastern Shore contributes to the truck traffic along US 113.
Tourist attractions, such as Ocean City, Pocomoke River State Park, Assateague Island and
additional shoreline attractions located along the Eastern Shore, contribute to traffic demands that
increase significantly during the summer months. US 113 is a four-lane divided roadway south of
Snow Hill, through the Berlin area, and north of the Delaware State Line. The remaining two
segments of US 113 consist of two-lane undivided highway.
The current ADT (year 1995) ranges from 3,500 to 7,500 vehicles per day for the southern study area
and 6,400 to 12,200 vehicles per day for the northern study area. The current summer ADT (1995)
ranges from 4,900 to 8,900 vehicles per day for the southern study area and 8,300 to 18,500 vehicles
per day for the northern study area. Summer ADT volumes range from 19 percent to 52 percent
higher than the yearly ADT for the same portion of US 113. Existing ADT volumes are presented
in Table 1-1 and on Figures IV-1A through ID. Trucks currently make up 14 percent of the ADT
volumes on US 113.
Design year (2020) traffic forecasts were prepared in accordance with the Comprehensive
Development Plan for Worcester County and assume completion of four lanes along US 113 in
Delaware. These design year forecasts indicate a 1 percent difference among the alternatives under
consideration (i.e. between the No-Build and Dualize alternatives). The design year ADT for the
southern study area ranges from 5,000 to 10,800 vehicles per day and 7,000 to 12,900 vehicles per
day during the summer months. The design year ADT for the northern study area ranges from
10,100 to 20,000 vehicles per day during non-summer timeframe (or months) and 13,600 to 30,400
vehicles per day during the summer months. Projected ADT volumes are presented in Table 1-1 and
Figures F/-1A through ID.
Traffic flow is measured by determining a level of service (LOS) for the roadway (see Chapter I,
Section C for a description of each level of service). Each level of service coincides with conditions
that drivers experience while traveling along a roadway. LOS designations, from A to F, are used
to define traffic operations on any given section of highway. LOS A indicates ideal conditions and
W-l
-------
US 113 Planning Study
LOS F indicates severe congestion with substantial delays. In the rural/agricultural areas through
which US 113 passes (i.e., outside of the corporate limits of Berlin), travelers expect traffic
conditions to be free of congestion, as represented by LOS A, B, or C.
The following paragraphs summarize expected traffic operations under each of the alternatives
retained for detailed study:
1. No-Build Alternatives Baseline
(Alternatives IS and IN)
The No-Build Alternatives, as described in Chapter H, Section D.2, would not provide major
improvements to the existing US 113 roadways. Specific improvements recently
implemented or programmed for implementation are listed in Tables II-1A through ID, and
the locations of these improvements are shown on Figures II-2A through H-2D. Typical
sections are shown on Figure n-3. The routine maintenance operations would not
measurably affect roadway capacity. Spot improvements would continue as funding
becomes available. Although the No-Build Alternatives will not meet the project need, they
are being used as a basis of comparison for the analysis of the other alternatives. Existing and
design year 2020 levels of service for the No-Build Alternatives are presented on Figures IV-
1A through ID and summarized on Table S-l.
2. Transportation Systems Management Alternatives
(Alternatives 2S and 2N)
The Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternatives, as described in Chapter H,
Section D.3, would provide improvements along the existing roadway to enhance safety and
reduce traffic congestion without adding through traffic capacity or other major alterations
to the existing two lane highway. The TSM improvements include intersection improvements
and additional measures to improve the safety of the existing two-lane roadway. The TSM
Alternatives include continued short-term spot improvements such as signing and marking,
street lighting, and warning flashers, and addresses longer-term improvements with
additional turning, acceleration/deceleration, and bypass lanes; skid resistant pavement
overlays; rumble slots along the centerline and along the outside edges of pavement; and, the
limiting of passing through some areas. The improvements would be prioritized during the
final design phase. The TSM improvements are listed in Tables H-1A through ID, and
locations of these improvements are shown on Figures H-2A through 2D. Typical sections
are shown on Figure H-3. Traffic operations (LOS) would be similar to the No-Build
Alternatives, as shown on Figures IV-1A through ID and as summarized on Table S-l.
3. Two-Lanes with 20' Median Alternative (Alternative 2S-20' Median)
This alternative would provide a 20-foot wide median (either paved or grass) with guardrail
and typically one (1) lane per direction along existing US 113 in only the southern study area
(see Chapter E, Section D.4.). At intersections, left turn lanes would be provided in the
-------
N
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
OBBBt^H—IM
SCALE IN FEET
Legend
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Summer
Yearly (Saturdays
(weekdays Memorial
•II year) Day to
Labor Day)
Level of Service (LOS)
Summer
Yearly (Saturdays
(weekdays Memorial
aDyaar) Day to
Labor Day)
ADT
LOS
1995
2020
1995
2020
KEY MAP
US 113 PLANNING STUDY
1995 & No-Build 2020
ADT & LOS
SOUTHERN STUDY AREA
AOmintttrmOon
April 1997
Figure
IV-1A
-------
Legend
Average Dally Traffic (ADT)
Summar
YMiV (Stfuttkya
(weeMivt Memorial
tlyew) Dtyto
L»borD«y)
APT
1995 L5ySpQ|fi
-------
legend
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Level of Service (LOS)
Summer Summer
Yearly (Saturdays Ysarty (Saturdays
(weekdays Memorial (weekdays Memorial
all year) Day to aHyear) Dtyto
Labor Day) Labor Day)
ADT
LOS
1995
2020
1995
2020
•-'* ://^^i Jt JT-*l» iO
BERLIN
*y>
.
ADT
" mONSHlRE
ADT
*SR,
10,82512,850
/
\.
%>c '"•S U? o loor^ooo aoo^woo ^ i
^to^-;-J)| SCALED FEET ^M
/;• .'/ ^.--~^!. '' '
^ \ % /'>" >>. \ ^ ' ZX?^-
i/l '•• =^ "l-r V'^-^C'^ % /
i^\..x:^ «•«_ r—X!-^5?'S&;?{_ 4v
LOS '-% yH.j •L_'V^^.5-'!4f'XV "~
LOS
LOS
KEY MAP
US 113 PLANNING STUDY
1995 & No-Build 2020
ADT & LOS
SOUTHERN STUDY AREA
StfttHjghwty
April1997
Figure
IV-1C
-------
Average Dally Traffic (ADT) Level of Service
Summer Sur
Yearly (Saturdays Yearly (Sat;
(weekdays Memorial (weekdays Mer
an year) Day to aflyoar)
Labor Day) Lalx
14,02517,325
US 113 PLANNING STUDY
1995 & No-Build 2020
ADT & LOS
NORTHERN STUDY AREA
-------
US 113 Planning Study
median; right turn lanes would be provided where warranted by traffic volumes. In order to
facilitate passing maneuvers, four (4) passing lanes 12-feet in width and approximately 1 to
1.25 miles in length (2 for northbound and 2 for southbound traffic) would be provided.
Typical sections are shown on Figure TJ-4. The seven (7) plates for this alternative are
presented in Appendix A (Scale: 1" = 400').
Traffic operations at intersections under this alternative would improve over the No-Build
due to the provision of turn lanes at cross streets; although the basic number of lanes would
remain at two with NO PASSING opportunities being severely limited in comparison to the
No-Build and all other alternatives (i.e. passing would only be permitted along the four (4)
passing lanes). In summary, traffic operations (LOS) would probably average slightly better
than the No-Build Alternative IS, as shown on Figures IV-1A through 1C and as
summarized on Table S-l.
4. Dualization Alternatives
(Alternatives 3S, 3N, 4N Modified, and Combination Alternatives)
Each of the dualization alternatives, as described in Chapter H, Sections D.5. through D.9,
propose a four-lane divided roadway with a median (both 20- foot wide and 34-foot wide
medians are being evaluated). Access would be partially controlled. The dualization
alternatives in the southern study area are being evaluated in accordance with 60 MPH design
criteria (Alternative 3S); 50 MPH and 60 MPH design criteria are being evaluated for the
dualization alternatives along existing US 113 in the northern study area 3N alternatives; and
the new location and combination alternatives are being evaluated for 60 MPH design
criteria. Typical sections are shown on Figures H-6, -7, and -8.^ The ten (10) plates for the
dualization alternatives are presented in Appendix A (Scale: 1" = 400').
Traffic volumes for the design year 2020 are forecast to increase slightly (less than 1 percent)
over the No-Build. LOS, however, would greatly improve given the increased operational
flexibility and capacity of the roadway under the dualization alternatives.
Intersections projected to operate at LOS F under No-Build conditions in the year 2020
would improve to LOS C or D under each of the dualization alternatives. Through traffic on
the roadway would improve to LOS C or better under each of the dualization alternatives.
See Figures IV-1A through ID and the summary on Table S-l.
5. Safety
Accidents occurring in the study area are discussed in Chapter I, Purpose and Need. As
shown on Table 1-2, US 113 experienced a total of 947 accidents from January 1980 through
December 1995 (a 16-year period). The fatal accident rate is equal to or greater than the
statewide average rate for both study areas, and the rate for injury accidents and property
damage accidents in the northern study area is greater than the statewide average rate for
the 1980 through 1995 period.
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table 1-3 presents a detailed analysis for the accidents which occurred along the two-lane
portions of US 113 for the 6-year period from 1990 through 1995. The following
observations may be drawn from these 6-years of accident data:
the statistically determined fatal accident rate is equal to or higher than the statewide
average rate for both study areas and significantly greater in the northern study area.
the overall accident rate in the northern study area is greater than the statewide average
rate.
the accident rates in the northern study area for angle collisions, fixed object, opposite
direction and pedestrian accidents are greater than the statewide average, and significantly
greater statistically for angle collisions and fixed object accidents.
furthermore, in the northern study area, the wet surface related accidents and alcohol
related accidents are significantly greater statistically than the statewide average rate.
The high number of fatal accidents is a primary purpose for conducting this study. Fall and
summer have represented the seasons that experience the highest number of fetol accidaits.
Figures 1-1A through ID identifies the locations and provides a description of the 40 fatal
accidents for the period January 1980 through April 1997 (17 years plus 4 months). A total
of 46 people have died as a result of vehicular accidents along the two-lane portions
of US 113 during the January 1980 through April 1997 period. Additional details on
these fatal accidents are presented in Table 1-4.
An analysis of the potential consequences of each of the alternatives under consideration
in terms of the total number of accidents has been completed, as follows (and are
summarized in Table IV-1 and Table S-l).
- Alternatives IS and IN (No-Build): The No-Build alternatives would not provide major
improvements to the existing US 113 roadways. The minor improvements which would
occur as part of normal maintenance and safety operations do not provide features that
would prevent further opposite direction collisions where the probable cause was identified
as the failure to drive in the designated lane or failure to keep right of the centerlme. In
addition the No-Build alternatives would not remove obstructions along the edges of the
existing shoulders, obstructions which contribute to hit-fixed-object accidents. Therefore,
accidents would be expected to occur at a rate similar to the historical rate along the two-
lane portions of US 113 for Alternatives IS and IN. Increasing traffic volumes will
correspondingly, increase the total number of accidents from the number being experienced
today.
• Alternatives 2S and 2N (TSM): The TSM Alternatives would provide operational
improvements as previously discussed and could be expected to produce minor
improvements in the overall accident rates. The pavement overlays, rumble strips, and
-------
175 113 Planning Study
intersection improvements would slightly reduce the overall accident rate, although opposite
direction and hit-fixed-object accidents would not be substantially altered. While the rate
at which these accidents are predicted to occur would be lower than the rate anticipated for
the No-Build, the total number of accidents will, with increasing traffic volumes, also
increase.
Alternative 2S-201 Median: This alternative would provide a 20-foot wide median with
traffic barrier separating the single northbound and southbound traffic lanes. Designed in
accordance with 60 MPH criteria, 10-foot wide paved shoulders and 20-foot wide safety
grading would be provided (except in environmentally sensitive areas, where the safety
grading would be replaced by guardrail to reduce impacts). The provision of this median
would nearly eliminate opposite direction accidents (although the narrow median could be
expected to increase the number of hit-fixed-object accidents due to the presence of
guardrail in the median). The provision of full safety grading would reduce the hit fixed
object accidents now occurring along the roadside edges. Because this typical section (i.e.
one lane per direction separated by a median with traffic barrier) is somewhat unusual, and
due to the narrow median width, however, the overall accident rate is expected to
experience an improvement in comparison to the No-Build but less than the degree of
improvement anticipated for the dualization alternatives.
Alternatives 3S, 3N, 4N Modified, and Combination: An analysis of the accident rates
for the dualized/new location alignments has been conducted based on two sources of
research pertaining to median widths and their relation to accident experience. The first
source (NYS DOT Traffic Safety Report, 1985, printed in Traffic Conflict Techniques for
Safety and Operations, USDOT/FHWA, 1990) lists proposed roadway improvements and
their predicted effect on overall accident rates. Based on this research, reconstructing a two-
lane road to provide a median (no width specified) with left turn refuge areas should reduce
accidents by 24%. A second source (Association of Median Width and Highway Accident
Rates, TRR 1401, 1993) provided a log-linear regression analysis to predict the effect of
median width on accident rates. This research, based on research from the states of Utah
and Dlinois, predicts a net reduction of accidents of 25% by increasing the median width
from 0-feet to 34-feeL Applying the results from these sources to the dualization of US 113
with a median, a 24% reduction of the existing accident rates for both the northern and
southern study areas is appropriate to establish the corresponding predicted accident rates.
The presence of a traffic barrier in the median of the 20-foot median alternatives would
nearly eliminate opposite direction accidents (although the number of hit fixed object
accidents could be expected to increase).
Access control measures, especially along the new location alignments, and the provisions
of safety grading (9-feet for the 50 MPH design speed alternatives and 20-feet for the 60
MPH design speed alternatives) will also reduce angle collisions and hit fixed object
accidents.
IV-5
-------
US 113 Planning Study
While the predicted number of accidents shown in Table IV-1 for the dualization
alternatives may not be dramatically less than the numbers'shown for the other alternatives,
the accident severity is predicted to be substantially improved due to the provision of safety
recovery areas, medians, and control of access to the extent possible.
The following table summarizes the results of these accident analyses:
Table IV-1: Projected Accident Data
Alternative
Existing Year
(average for 1990-1995)
SOUTHERN STUDY AREA
Alt. IS No-Build
AU.2S-TSM
Alt. 2S - 20' Median (60 MPH)
Alt. 3S - 20' Median (60 MPH)
Alt. 3S - 34' Median (60 MPH)
29 accidents
NORTHERN STUDY AREA
Alt. IN No-Build
AU.2N-TSM
Alt. 3N-20' (50 MPH)
••^w—^——»^—^^—«^"•-"^—"
Alt. 3N-20' (60 MPH)
Alt. 3N-341 (50 MPH)
—
Alt. 3N-341 (60 MPH)
Alt. 4N Modified-20' Median (60 MPH)
Alt. 4N Modified-34' Median (60 MPH)
Alt. 3N/4N Modified-20' Median (60 MPH)
33 accidents
Design Year 2020
40 accidents
38 accidents
34 accidents
•in i— "i '™
31 accidents
31 accidents
65 accidents
62 accidents
52 accidents
50 accidents
52 accidents
50 accidents
46 accidents
46 accidents
48 accidents
Alt. 3N/4N Modified-34' Median (60 MPH)
Footnote: Fatal accidents
IV-6
-------
US 113 Planning Study
B. Social, Economic and Land Use
1. Social Environment
a. Residential Displacements
Residential property acquisition and relocations will be required in certain areas by
Alternative 2S-20' Median and all dualize alternatives currently under consideration (as
shown on alternatives mapping in Appendix A). All properties will be acquired in
accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition
Act of 1970, as amended in 1987. Residential property acquisition includes unimproved
property not owned by SHA that does not require the acquisition of a structure and
relocations that will require the acquisition of a structure by all of the dualization
alternatives. Most of the residences are one- to two-story detached dwellings and mobile
homes. Table IV-2 shows the number of relocations and estimated right-of-way cost of each
alternative.
Alternatives IS and IN, would not impact any residential properties, nor would it displace
any residences. Alternatives 2S and 2N will not require any residential relocations, although
right-of-way would need to be acquired from some residential properties. This would allow
for intersection improvements, roadside safety modifications and improved signalization.
The Coastal Association of Realtors, located in Salisbury, Maryland, was contacted to
determine the availability of housing in the study area. As of April 1997, over 90 single
family houses are available in Berlin, Newark and Snow Hill. The list price of housing
ranges between $25,000 and $692,000. There are also over 100 residential lots for sale in
these areas ranging in price from approximately $10,000 to $1.4 million.
The provisions of the Federal and State laws require SHA to provide payments and services
to persons displaced by a public project. The payments include replacement housing
payments and moving costs. In the event comparable replacement housing is not available
within the monetary limits for owners and tenants to rehouse persons displaced by public
projects or available replacement housing is beyond their financial means, replacement
"housing as a last resort" will be utilized to accomplish the rehousing. Detailed studies must
be completed by SHA before "housing as a last resort" can be utilized. A person displaced
by the acquisition of property by the State will not be required to move from their house until
at lest one comparable house or apartment has been located and offered to that person. A
summary of the Relocation Assistance Program of the State of Maryland is provided in
Appendix C of this document.
IV-7
-------
US 113 Planning Study
After the SHA relocation counselor's study has been completed, the displaced person(s) will
receive a letter stating the amount of replacement housing payment eligibility. This letter
contains a promise that the displaced person will not have to vacate the property for at least
90 days. Once the state acquires the property, the displaced person(s) will receive a 30-day
notice which contains a specific date to vacate (Maryland State Highway Administration, no
date).
Title VI Statement
It is the policy of SHA to ensure compliance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and related civil rights laws and regulations, which prohibit
discrimination on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, age, religion, physical or
mental handicap or sexual orientation in all SHA projects funded in whole or in part by the
Federal Highway Administration. SHA will not discriminate in highway planning, design,
or construction, the acquisition of right-of-way, or the provision of relocation advisory
assistance. This policy has been incorporated into all levels of the highway planning process
to ensure that proper consideration may be given to the social, economic and environmental
effects of all highway projects. Alleged discriminatory actions should be addressed to the
Equal Opportunity Section of SHA for investigation.
IV-8
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-2: Right-of-Way Impacts and Displacements by Alternative
l=— ============
Alternatives ;
IS -No-Build
IN - No-Build
2S - TSM
2N - TSM
2S-201 Median
3S-20' Median
3S-341 Median
3N-20' Median (50 MPH)
3N-201 Median (60 MPH)
3N-341 Median (50 MPH)
3N-341 Median (60 MPH)
4N Modified -20' Median
4N Modified -34' Median
3N/4N Modified -20' Median
3N/4N Modified -34' Median
"•
Additional
Right-of-Way
Required
None
None
Minimal
Minimal
31 acres
67 acres
74 acres
86 acres
122 acres
78 acres
136 acres
1 1 1 acres
123 acres
102 acres
113 acres
±=====
:======
Residential
Displacements
Sll'J'll "Jill " --—
None
None
None
None
4
2
2
19
23
22
24
7
8
15
15
— T-J ; . .- ,
========
Business
Displacements
....
None
None
None
None
1*
1*
1*
7
6
7
6
4*
4*
4*
4*
^— — i
Total
Right-of-Way
Costs
=======
None
None
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal
$ 1.6 M
S1.7M '
$12.8 M
$12.8 M
$12.8 M
' $14.2 M
$ 9.4 M
$10.4 M
$8.8M
$9.8M
J M
b. Effects on Elderly and Handicapped Groups
There are no known concentrations of elderly residents in the study area. Alternatives IS, IN,
2S and 2N would not displace any elderly residents. All of the proposed alternatives in the
northern study area are located in census tracts 9913, 9915, 9916, and 9917, which have
elderly populations of 16.0 percent, 14.4 percent, 21.8 percent, and 16.0 percent respectively
All of the proposed alternatives in the southern study area are located in census tracts 9919
and 9920 which have elderly populations of 14.2 percent and 17.2 percent, respectively
Adverse impacts to the elderly community are not anticipated as a result of the proposed
improvements.
Concentrations of handicapped individuals are located either in the existing dualized portion
of the US 113 study area or outside of the proposed right-of-way of any of the alternative^
Adverse impacts to this population group are not anticipated by any of the alternatives. If
required, appropriate relocation advisory services will be offered to displaced elderly and
handicapped individuals.
7V-9
-------
US 113 Planning Study
c. Environmental Justice
Some minority residential displacements would be required as a result of the proposed
roadway improvements. In order to determine the likelihood that minority communities may
be impacted, each alternative was studied to determine which census tract it would impact
and what percentage of minorities are present in those census tracts. The SHA District Office
of Real Estate conducted an evaluation to determine the presence of minority-owned and
occupied residences and businesses in the study area and drafted a Detailed Relocation
Assistance Report.
African-Americans are the predominant minority population in Worcester County. All of the
proposed alternatives in the northern study area are located in census tracts 9913,9915,9916,
and 9917, which have African-American populations of 15.6 percent, 28.4 percent, 1.1
percent, and 1.6 percent respectively. All of the proposed alternatives in the southern study
area are located in census tracts 9919 and 9920, which have African-American populations
of 24.1 percent and 40.7 percent respectively. This information may not be indicative of the
local racial population group distribution where displacements are projected to occur. In a
public outreach effort to supplement the census tract information, the SHA sent
correspondence to area churches requesting their assistance in informing their members of
the project and helping to identify minority and low income concentrations in the project
area. SHA also offered to meet with the churches to discuss the project.
All of the 3N and 3N/4N Modified alternatives would widen the existing roadway on the east
side where the minority community of twelve houses is located just south of Bishop between
US 113 and Old Stage Road. None of these houses will be displaced as a result of these
alternatives. A small amount of right-of-way would need to be acquired from the
unimproved driveway leading into this community. Indirect impacts as a result of land use
growth patterns are not anticipated as a result of the proposed transportation improvements.
This community is located in a light industrial (M-l) zone adjacent to land zoned A-l. A
worst case scenario of five residential dwellings (which is the allowable residential density
for a parcel of land zoned A-l) being constructed adjacent to this community is not
anticipated to create adverse living conditions for this community.
Alternatives IS, IN, 2S, 2N, 4N Modified -20' Median and 4N Modified -34' Median would
not generate any minority displacements and would not impact any minority communities.
All of the 3N alternatives would require the acquisition of five minority residences. Both
3N/4N Modified alternatives would require the acquisition of four minority residences. The
3S alternatives would required the acquisition of one minority residence as would Alternative
2S-20' Median. No minority businesses will be displaced by any of the proposed alternatives.
IV-10
-------
US 113 Planning Study
According to SHA, income levels of families affected by the proposed improvements range
from middle to lower income.
Noise and air quality sampling were conducted in the small minority community along Old
Stage Road near Bishop. The ambient and design year (2020) noise levels did not exceed
FHWA noise abatement criterion (see Table IV-18). The air quality analysis indicates that
carbon monoxide impacts generated by any of the proposed alternatives would not result in
a violation of the S/NAAQS 1-hour CO concentration of 35 ppm or the 8-hour CO
concentration of 9 ppm (see Tables IV-15). Adverse noise and air quality impacts to this
community are not anticipated as a result of the proposed alternatives.
The analysis of minority population groups and low income population groups in the study
area indicates that no disproportionate amount of adverse impacts will occur as a result of
any of the proposed alternatives. The proposed dualize alternatives would provide better
access to community facilities and services for minority and low income populations living
in the study area.
Appropriate relocation advisory services will be offered to displaced minority or low income
persons, if required. Related environmental justice impacts will be addressed according to
the provisions of Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." Also, Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act, as highlighted previously in the "Residential Displacements" discussion of this Chapter,
ensures that no person will be discriminated against by actions of the SHA, relating to the
project.
d. Effects on Community Facilities
Places of Worship
No places of worship will need to be acquired with any of the proposed alternatives.
Alternatives IS, IN, 2S and 2N do not require acquisition of right-of-way from places of
worship in the study area. All of the proposed dualization alternatives would provide
improved access to worship facilities in the study area with the additional lane provided in
the design of these alternatives. All of the 3N Alternatives will provide a service road or
improved driveway to Calvary Chapel and Temple Bat Yam. Parishioners of the Calvary
Pentecostal Church near Bishop who travel north on US 113 would have to perform a U-turn
at an intersection north of the place of worship to access it. The Snow Hill Mennonite
Church would have a median break placed in front of it with the 3S alternatives.
Alternative 3S-341 Median (60 MPH) will require approximately 0.1 acres of right-of-way
from the Snow Hill Mennonite Church property. Alternative 3N-34' Median (60 MPH) will
require 0.3 acres of right-of-way from Temple Bat Yam, 0.5 acres of right-of-way from
Calvary Chapel, 0.4 acre of right-of-way from the site of Trinity Charismatic Episcopal
Church and approximately 0.3 acre from Calvary Pentecostal Church. Impacts will be less
IV-11
-------
US 113 Planning Study
with the 20' median alternatives. SHA will negotiate the acquisition of right-of-way with
affected property owners.
Emergency Services
US 113 is the primary north/south route used by emergency personnel and is a crucial link
between study area communities and emergency services. According to the Worcester
County Fire Marshal's office, there have been no problems or complaints regarding response
times to fires and other emergencies with existing US 113 (Taylor, 1996). The dualization
alternatives will each add one travel lane in each direction, and the 2S-20' Median alternative
provides an approximate one mile long passing lane in both the northbound and southbound
lanes in the vicinities of Basket Switch and Snow Hill, allowing emergency vehicles to safely
pass other vehicles. The proposed interchange at US 113 and MD Route 90 associated with
all of the dualize alternatives in the northern study area will provide better access to
emergencies as compared to the existing interchange. A flashing red light at the existing
interchange warns vehicles to stop before proceeding onto MD Route 90 as the speed limit
here is 50 miles per hour. The 2S and 2N Alternatives incorporate additional turning,
acceleration/ deceleration and bypass lanes in its design which also provide better
accessibility for emergency vehicles. The No-Build Alternative does not adversely impact
emergency services.
Response times by emergency vehicles may increase with the alternatives that include a
median. The median acts as a barrier, changing the access for emergency vehicles. For
example, emergency vehicles traveling north would have to perform a U-turn at the nearest
intersection to reach an emergency situation located on the southbound side of the road. The
Worcester County Office of Emergency Services has been requested to review the
alternatives under consideration and provide additional analysis as to how the alternatives
might affect response times and service.
The Showell volunteer fire department, located on the northbound side of US 113 in the
northern study area, is the only fire station located along US 113 in the study area. A
mitigation measure that should be considered in the final design if either Alternative 3N-201
Median (50 MPH) or 3N-34' Median (50 MPH) is chosen as the Selected Alternative, is
placing a median break in front of the fire station for official use only along with a flashing
yellow signal in both directions of traffic. This signal would alert motorists to the presence
of a fire station. The fire department would have the control of turning the signal to red to
stop traffic and allow their emergency vehicles to safely proceed onto the roadway.
Depending on where the emergency is located, station personnel could stop northbound
traffic if the emergency is located in the north or both directions of traffic if the emergency
is south of the station. The two 3N (60 MPH) alternatives would create an approximate 0.5
mile service road out of existing US 113 in the Showell area. This service road would
provide access to residences and businesses as well as the Showell Fire Department.
IV-12
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Other Community Facilities
No libraries, health care facilities, schools, public parks, or senior citizens centers will be
displaced or require the acquisition of land by the proposed alternatives. The additional travel
lane incorporated into the dualization alternatives, along with the passing lanes associated
with the 2S-201 Median alternative would provide better access to these facilities within the
study area.
Recreation Opportunities
The additional travel lanes incorporated into the dualization alternatives and the passing lane
included in the design of Alternative 2S-201 Median will improve access to recreational
facilities and the beach resorts within the study area. Newark Road, which is part of the
View Trail 100 Scenic bike trail, intersects with US 113 at Newark. Bicyclists will have
additional travel lanes to cross on US 113 with Alternatives 3S-201 Median and 3S-34'
Median; however, the median will provide refuge. The View Trail 100 will remain in the
same location. There will be no loss in use or continuity of the trail, even during the
construction phase. Construction will occur within SHA right-of-way and will not require
additional right-of-way from other roads which comprise the trail. No parks or recreational
facilities in the study area will be adversely affected by any of the Alternatives or require the
acquisition of right-of-way.
SHA may look at ways to alert motorists to the presence of bicyclists in the area where the
View Trail 100 crosses US 113. No other mitigation measures are considered necessary for
recreational facilities in the study area.
Utilities
Permanent disruption of utility services is not anticipated as a result of the proposed
alternatives. Temporary disruption of utility service may occur if utility lines located along
the right-of-way need to be relocated. It will be necessary for SHA to coordinate with the
utility companies and Worcester County to locate utility lines and prevent or minimize the
amount of disruption of electric, gas, water, sewer, telephone and cable television service
within the study area. The utility companies, in conjunction with the SHA, should inform
their service areas by signage and/or media outlets regarding any planned service
interruptions as a result of the proposed roadway improvements.
The Worcester County Comprehensive Development Plan states that one of the most
powerful growth management tools available is the provision of sewerage and sewage
disposal systems. The plan states that "new service should be extended only to those areas
where control sewer facilities are required to accommodate anticipated higher growth" and
that "new sewer service should not be extended to areas where high density growth is not
desired." Future high density growth is not anticipated in the areas adjacent to US 113. Most
of the future development is anticipated to occur east of US 113 along the waterfront of the
coastal bay areas.
IV-13
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Transportation Systems
No adverse impacts to the County's transportation network are anticipated with the proposed
alternatives. Alternatives 2S and 2N provide improvements to the existing roadway without
major alteration to enhance safety and reduce traffic congestion. Improvements would be
prioritized, based on detailed accident and traffic analyses. The dualize alternatives and
Alternative 2S-201 Median will reduce the risk of a head-on collision between vehicles by
separating northbound and southbound traffic with a median and decrease travel times,
allowing the opportunity for faster moving vehicles to safely pass slower moving vehicles.
The interchanges incorporated into the design of all of the northern study area dualization
alternatives at US 113 and MD Route 90 will provide safer east/west and north/south access.
Air and water transportation will not be disrupted as a result of the proposed action. The
Maryland and Delaware Railroad crosses US 113 just south of Market Street near Snow Hill;
near the intersection of US 113 and Newark Road; and just north of Bishop within the study
area. Coordination between the railroad and SHA will be undertaken to avoid delays in any
scheduled rail service during construction and to determine if additional signage or traffic
control devices are needed for safety.
e. Disruption of Neighborhoods and Communities
Impacts to the existing level of community cohesion are anticipated with the dualize and 2S-
20' Median alternatives. Although these alternatives will not physically bisect any
communities not already divided by US 113, they will create residential relocations as
previously identified in Table IV-2 and disrupt the community cohesion of several
communities with residences located on both sides of US 113 in the study area. These
alternatives have a median incorporated into their designs. The median is a physical barrier,
allowing only right in/right out access to and from the existing roadway. The median would
change the access and travel patterns compared to the unlimited access northbound and
southbound that US 113 currently provides. For example, a resident who lives on the
northbound side of US 113 and wants to go somewhere located on the southbound side
would have to drive northbound to the nearest intersection and perform a U-turn.
The 3N-34' Median (60 MPH) alternative would require the acquisition of 24 residences, the
highest number of residential displacements out of all of the alternatives under consideration.
The IS, IN, 2S and 2N alternatives do not displace any residences. The communities that
will experience the majority of the residential displacements are Jones, Showell and Bishop,
all located in the northern study area.
Relocating displaced residents in proximity to their former residences will reduce the impacts
of the proposed dualize and 2S-20' Median alternatives on community cohesion in the study
area. The construction phase of the proposed project may lead to increased travel times
between communities as detours and delays in the flow of traffic are enacted to allow
construction equipment access to the project area. This is considered a temporary impact.
IV-14
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Alternatives IS and IN will not directly impact any neighborhoods; however, these
alternatives would do nothing to improve safety between neighborhoods for motorists,
bicyclists and pedestrians, negating any opportunities for better community cohesion. By
providing localized intersection and safety improvements, the 2S and 2N Alternatives would
benefit neighborhoods to a limited degree and provide opportunities for improved community
cohesion throughout the US 113 corridor.
County land use objectives include "encourage new development projects to locate in or near
the existing population centers and service centers (where planned) but also discourage
development of the rural areas of the County" and "maintain the rural character of Worcester
and its existing population centers, small towns and villages" (Worcester County Planning
Commission, 1989). The responsibility of regulating land use and development rests with the
Worcester County Commission and the Worcester County Planning, Permits and Inspections
(WCPPI) office. Some new single family houses have been constructed along Shingle
Landing Road in the northern study area adjacent to the lot where a new garden center is
being developed. A new place of worship, Temple Bat Yam, is presently under construction
just north of the MD 90/US 113 interchange. No new development is taking place in the
southern study area. New development is being targeted toward the existing population
centers where infrastructure and community facilities and services are located. Development
is occurring along the coastal bay areas of Ocean Pines, Cape Isle of Wight, St. Martin's
Neck and West Ocean City.
Citizens of the Friendship/Jones community located in the northern study area along both
sides of existing US 113 have expressed their concern regarding property values, residential
displacements, access issues and noise levels as they relate to Alternative 3N-341 Median (60
MPH). Because of its proximity to the existing roadway, Alternative 3N-34' Median (60
MPH) would require right-of-way from property located adjacent to US 113, with some
residential units and businesses being displaced. Eight residences in the Friendship/Jones
area would be displaced with this alternative. This alternative is perceived by the community
as a disruption to their cohesion because of the dualization of the existing road. In addition,
residents who want to enter their vehicles onto the roadway from their driveways will not be
able to cross the highway in most locations because of the grass median associated with this
alternative separating northbound and southbound traffic.
The citizens in this community are in support of the 4N Modified alternatives because they
avoid impacts to this established community and the quality of life they currently experience.
Alternatives 4N Modified -34' Median and -20' Median are avoidance alternatives and would
not impact any of the residences in the Friendship/Jones area that would be displaced by
Alternative 3N-34' Median (60 MPH). Alternative 3N-201 Median (50 MPH) has been
designed in an effort to minimize the amount of right-of-way required. The right-of-way line
would be located further away from residences and would not require as many residential
takes as Alternative 3N-341 Median (60 MPH) would. The changes in accessibility associated
with Alternative 3N-341 Median (60 MPH) would also occur with this alternative. A
mitigation measure to be considered if one of the 3N Alternatives is chosen as the Selected
~ IV-15
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Alternative is to relocate those displaced residents who wish to remain in the
Friendship/Jones area as close to this community as possible.
Access control issues will be addressed on a property-by-property basis during the final
design phase of the project. There are no new residences in the study area that would become
frontal property as a result of the dualize alternatives. Residences already front existing US
113 there the 3S and 3N alternatives would be located parallel to the existing roadway.
Farmland and forest front the 4N Modified and 3N/4N Modified alternatives. According to
the Worcester County Assessment Office, property values, in the long term, may increase
with the dualize alternatives (Slater, 1997).
f. Effects on Access to Services and Facilities
The schools, churches, health care facilities, recreational facilities, libraries and senior citizen
centers would be provided with improved accessibility with dualize and 2S-201 Median
alternatives. The additional lane of travel incorporated into the design of the dualize
alternatives and the passing lane associated with the 2S-20' Median would allow faster
moving vehicles to safely pass slower moving vehicles. The service roads incorporated into
the design of the 3N Alternatives will provide access to businesses, residences, and
emergency vehicles in Jones and Showell. The service roads also limit the number of access
points to US 113, which would improve safety. Although the latest data shows that there
have been no head-on collisions involving public safety vehicles, (Wilson, 1997), the
dualization and 2S-20' Median alternatives separate northbound and southbound traffic
allowing these vehicles to safely pass without the risk of a head-on collision. The alternatives
with a median also allow motorists to stop for school buses traveling in the same direction
letting motorists in the opposite travel lanes to continue moving. Alternatives 4N Modified
-20' Median, 4N Modified -34' Median, 3N/4N Modified -20' Median and 3N/4N Modified
-34' Median would separate through traffic from local traffic in sections of its design. This
would allow those who want to bypass the local services to do so while providing motorists
the opportunity to visit a local business, residence, or community facility. The 2S and 2N
alternatives would only provide localized improvements and would not reduce traffic
congestion in the region over the long term. Alternatives IS and IN do not provide improved
access to the services and facilities in the study area.
The dualize and 2S-20' Median alternatives would change the access for area residents
compared to current conditions. Motorists and emergency vehicles requiring access to the
opposite side of US 113 from which they are driving would have to travel to the nearest
intersection to make a U-turn. This situation would slightly increase the travel time to a
destination compared to the existing condition of unlimited northbound and southbound
access on US 113.
IV-16
-------
US 113 Planning Study
2. Economic Environment
a. Effects on Existing Businesses
Businesses will be displaced by roadway improvements associated with Alternative 2S-20'
Median and by the dualize alternatives. Table IV-3 shows the business displacements
associated with each alternative. Alternatives 2S-20' Median, 3S-201 Median and 3S-34'
Median would require the acquisition of one business. The relocation of a produce stand will
also be required with both 3S alternatives. Alternatives 3N-20' Median (50 MPH) and 3N-
34' Median (50 MPH) would require the acquisition of seven businesses. Alternatives 3N-
20' Median (60 MPH) and 3N-34' Median (60 MPH) would require the acquisition of six
businesses. Alternatives 4N Modified -20' Median, 4N Modified -34' Median, 3N/4N
Modified -20' Median and 3N/4N Modified - 34' Median would require the acquisition of
four businesses. The IS, IN, 2S and 2N Alternatives will not generate any business
displacements.
All of the proposed dualization alternatives in the northern study area will indirectly impact
three businesses. Storage areas associated with Ocean Designs and a welding shop will be
displaced by these alternatives. In addition, approximately half of the existing parking area
in front of the Delmarva Veterinary Hospital will be relocated to the northern side of the
facility. The welding shop and Ocean Designs may require total acquisition if replacement
storage areas cannot be provided. A more detailed analysis of this situation will occur during
final design if one of these alternatives is chosen as the Selected Alternative.
The employees of displaced businesses will also be affected by the roadway improvements.
The distance and commute times to the relocated locations may increase so that employees
would not be able to remain with their current employers. Business owners may also want
to relocate their business out of the study area. No minority-owned businesses will be
displaced as a result of the proposed roadway improvements. An inventory of the number of
people employed at each displaced business was not conducted; however, the types of
businesses that are to be displaced do not appear to employ a significant number of people
and therefore, would not create a hardship to the community.
Based on a review of the local real estate market, suitable commercial property is presently
available in all areas of the project. All commercial properties acquired by SHA for
construction of the project will be compensated at fair market value and in accordance with
the requirements of the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as
amended in 1987. It is the responsibility of the individual owners to select new properties
for their businesses.
IV-17
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-3: Business Displacements by Alternative
3=3 :.s====ss=ss==ia:
Alternatives
| IS -No-Build |
2S-TSM
2S-20' Median
3S-20' Median
3S - 34' Median
IN -No-Build
2N - TSM
3N-20' Median
50MPH
3N-341 Median
50MPH
3N-20' Median
60MPH
3N-341 Median
60 MPH
4N Modified -
20' Median
4N Modified -
34" Median
3N/4N Modified
- 20' Median
3N/4N Modified
- 34' Median
• .'•'..- ;,V Name of Business , -\
General
Store &
Antiques
Station
1353-L
0
0
X
X
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vic's
Country
Store
Station
2035-R
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
X
0
0
0
0
Showell..
Store ."
Station
2177-R
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
X
0
0
0
0
"- ••-
Used :•',, .-.;''.
Furniture
and
Collectibles
Station
2182-R
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
POP-.:
Pop's
Repairs
Station
2198-R
=
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K.L. ;.,.,
Bradford
Ceramic
Tile&
Marble
Station
2205-L
=====
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
=====
Warehouse
Station
2268-R
=====
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
=====
Cactus
Cafe
Station
2371-L
======
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
=====
Tot
0
0
1
1
J
c
c
6
6
4
4
4
Note - Alternatives IS, IN, 2S and 2N do not displace any businesses
X - Denotes displacement
L - Left of centerline of alternative
R - Right of centerline of alternative
IV-28
IS?
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Alternatives with a median would change the access to local businesses compared to the
existing roadway. For example, potential customers traveling northbound may have to travel
to the nearest intersection and make a U-tum to visit a business located on the southbound
side of the road. Service roads incorporated into the 3N Alternatives would provide access
to businesses in Showell and Jones.
The types of businesses in the study area are mixed. There are some restaurants, produce
stands, and retail merchants that rely on drive-by traffic for their business. There are other
businesses of a more industrial nature (feed mills, poultry-related industries) that do not rely
on drive-by traffic for their business. There may be some loss of patronage of businesses by
motorists not familiar with the study area or area residents who may decide it is not worth
the effort to make a U-turn to patronize a business. However, it is anticipated that most area
residents will make the turning movements necessary to patronize businesses with which they
have a relationship. Providing more signage along US 113 to alert motorists to businesses
located on the opposite side of the roadway would increase the visibility of local businesses
and may encourage patronage.
b. Effects on Regional Business Activities
US 113 provides a critical link to the movement of goods and services along the east coast
between Philadelphia and the Virginia Tidewater area. Roadway improvements can be an
incentive to businesses to relocate or remain in an area by providing a safer, more efficient
transportation system.
The poultry and tourism industries are vital to the regional economy. Farmers in the area
contract with poultry processors to grow crops for feed and raise chickens for processing.
Trucks use US 113 to travel to and from farms, processing plants and feed mills in the region.
The addition of a travel lane in each direction associated with the dualization alternatives
would facilitate the efficient movement of goods and services, reduce traffic congestion,
improve safety, and reduce travel time. Improvements to US 113 would make it safer for
vacationers and truck drivers traveling in the Delmarva region. A one percent increase in
traffic volume over the No-Build Alternative traffic volume is projected with the Build
Alternatives. Travel characteristics are not anticipated to change with any of the Build
Alternatives. The interchange associated with the dualization alternatives in the northern
study area would provide an easier and safer connection between US 113 and MD Route 90.
Alternatives 2S and 2N would provide only localized improvements in safety conditions and
would not reduce traffic congestion in the region over the long term. Alternatives IS and IN
will not improve the safety or improve the efficiency of traffic flow along US 113.
The majority of the land use in the study area is agricultural. The County's Comprehensive
Plan states that the County's land use objectives include encouraging growth in the existing
population centers and discouraging new development in the rural areas. The proposed Build
Alternatives will not adversely impact the local economy with the loss of businesses required
for right-of-way.
-------
US 113 Planning Study
According to the Ocean City engineering department, a new traffic signal will be placed at
41st Street and Coastal Highway in front of the convention center. No additional
transportation improvements are being anticipated or have been requested as a result of the
convention center expansion (McGehan, 1997).
c. Tax Base Effects
Residential, commercial and agricultural property will be displaced for this project with the
proposed Build Alternatives. According to the Worcester County Assessment Office, an
adverse effect on the tax base is not anticipated with the right-of-way acquisition and
displacements associated with the proposed roadway improvements. If traffic volumes are
increased by the dualization of the roadway, the value of properties fronting the roadway may
increase, which would also increase the tax base (Slater, 1997).
3. Land Use
a. Existing
The purpose of the proposed roadway improvements is to improve the safety of the existing
US 113 roadway. Current land use will be altered by the proposed dualization and 2S-20'
Median alternatives through conversion of residential and commercial properties, farmland
and natural resources to transportation use. Table IV-4 shows the additional right-of-way
required by each proposed alternatives.
IV-20
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-4: Additional Right-of-Way Impacts by Alternative
Alternative
IS -No-Build
2S - TSM
2S-201 Median
3S-20' Median
3S-341 Median
IN - No-Build
2N - TSM
3N-201 Median (50 MPH)
3N-341 Median (50 MPH)
3N-201 Median (60 MPH)
3N-341 Median (60 MPH)
4N Modified -20' Median
4N Modified -34' Median
3N/4N Modified - 20' Median
3N/4N Modified - 34' Median
Additional
Right-of-Way
Required (Acres)
None
Minimal
31
67
74
None
Minimal
86
78
122
136
111
123
102
113
IV-21
-------
US 113 Planning Study
b. Future
Worcester County's population is projected to grow from 35,028 today to 46,000 by the year
2000; 58,000 by the year 2010; and 67,000 by the year 2020 (Hagar, 1997). New residential
development, businesses, community facilities and services will likely be needed to
accommodate the anticipated growth in the county's population. A study is underway by the
WCPPI to evaluate the need for additional housing units in the County. According to the
WCPPI office, there has been little interest in developing areas along the US 113 corridor.
Most of the new development has been projected to occur in the coastal bays in the northern
and central portions of the county. Based on a review of county plans and discussions with
local government officials, there does not appear to be any development in the study area that
is dependent on the US 113 roadway improvements for access. Access to land areas adjacent
to US 113 is expected to remain virtually the same with all of the alternatives under
consideration. The actual growth distribution will depend on the implementation of land use
controls to focus potential growth into appropriate areas. The responsibility to guide
development and land use rests with the Worcester County Commission and the WCPPI
office.
Coastal Bay Area
The entire northern study area and the southern study area between Berlin and Newark are
located in the Maryland Coastal Bay area. Maryland's Coastal Bay area is an ecologically
sensitive watershed area in Worcester County that drains into the coastal bays. A review of
the Maryland Coastal Bays Projected Land Use (Year 2005) Map was conducted to evaluate
future land use in this area. Land use projections are consistent with those stated in the
County Comprehensive Development Plan. Generally, higher density residential and
commercial development are projected for the northern part of the coastal bay area east of
the US 113 project area, while little development is projected for the southern coastal bay
area.
Most of the land in the US 113 study area located in the coastal bay area is projected to be
cropland/agriculture and forest/orchard. Some low density residential development is
projected east of US 113 in the area bounded by Ocean Pines, US 113, St. Martin's Neck and
US 50. Today, most of this land is farmland or forest. Medium density residential
development exists around the communities of Bishopville in the northern study area and
Newark in the southern study area and is projected to remain at this density. The only high
density residential development in the study area is in Ocean Pines in addition to a small
amount of commercial development. There is sufficient land in this community to support
additional high density residential development. No additional commercial/industrial
development is projected along US 113 in the coastal bay area.
Regions of the coastal bay area outside of the study area where high density residential
development exists and is projected for expansion include Berlin, Ocean City, West Ocean
City, Cape Isle of Wight, the MD 611 corridor paralleling Sinepuxent Bay and the area east
IV-22
-------
US 113 Planning Study
of Berlin between US 50, MD 611 and Assateague Road. Commercial/industrial
development exists and is projected to expand for Berlin, Ocean City, West Ocean City and
the US 50 corridor east of Berlin. The rest of the coastal bay area is projected for cropland/
agriculture, forest/orchard, beaches and wetlands.
Much of the land in the northern study area that is projected for future low-density residential
development is currently in agricultural use. The dualization alternatives under consideration
in this area would provide improved access with the additional travel lanes and may
encourage residential development in Ocean Pines and St. Martin's Neck, areas currently
zoned for low density residential development. The southern study area is projected to
remain mostly forested or cropland. The alternatives under consideration in the southern
study area are not anticipated to promote residential development in this area. Much of the
projected growth in the County is anticipated to occur adjacent to the coastal bays.
Maryland has a federally approved Coastal Zone Management Program. The US 113 project
is located in the Maryland coastal zone as defined by Maryland's federally approved
program. The requirements of Section 307 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 apply to the project and are being addressed through the NEPA/404 review process.
These requirements are carried out by the Maryland Department of the Environment.
Indirect Impacts
Indirect impacts are described in the Council on Environmental Quality regulation
(401508.8(b)) as "...caused by the action and are later in time or further removed in distance,
but one still reasonably foreseeable". In general, an improved transportation facility may
result in future zoning change requests to allow higher density development in areas not
currently zoned for such development. Among the indirect impacts associated with the
proposed roadway improvements is the potential for secondary development. Secondary
development is defined as development which could potentially occur as a result of new
highway construction.
Although the potential for secondary development exists, there are physical conditions and
land use controls which may limit the amount of development occurring within the study
area. The suitability of some of the soils to support development within the study area is
questionable (Winbrough, 1997). Except in Newark, public sewer service is not available
within the US 113 corridor. Although this does not prohibit development from occurring, a
developer would be responsible for installing the sewerage and sewage disposal facilities if
the proposed development cannot be supported by septic systems. In addition, there has not
been much interest in developing areas along US 113 as most of the people who relocate to
the area want to live adjacent to the water (Morris, 1997). For that reason, most of the
growth in Worcester County is projected for the northern and central coastal bays east of the
US 113 study area.
IV-23
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Presently, the following residential developments are taking place in the northern study area;
each of these developments is anticipated to include large single family homes (typically
2,500 SF and greater) on individual lots with septic systems (indicated lot sizes include
preservation of forested areas):
Hudson Farm: US 113 @ Shingle Landing Road
5 lots (ranging in size from 5± Ac. to 12± Ac.)
Bishop Farms: 1,400' east of US 113 along Shingle Landing Road
5 lots (ranging in size from 4± Ac. to 6± Ac.)
• Baker Farm: US 113 @ Bunting Road
4 lots (ranging in size from 11± Ac. to 16± Ac.)
1 lot @ 49± Ac.
In addition, in the vicinity of the US 113/MD 90 interchange, a new place of worship
(Temple Bat Yam) is being constructed. The site of the future home of the Trinity Episcopal
Charismatic Church is also located near this interchange.
County land use objectives stated within the Worcester County Comprehensive Development
Plan are to "encourage new development projects to locate in or near the existing population
centers and service centers (where planned) but also discourage development of the rural
areas of the County" and "maintain the rural character of Worcester and its existing
population centers, small towns and villages". In addition, most of the land located within
or in proximity to the study area is zoned for agricultural use. Minor subdivisions of five
residential units per property are allowed under this zoning classification. A description of
the zoning classifications and a zoning map are located in Chapter m, Section A. "Land
Use". Any request for a zoning change requires a public hearing by the Worcester County
Commission. Development of agriculturally-zoned land for non-agricultural use is not
consistent with the goals and objectives expressed in the County's Comprehensive
Development Plan.
The Maryland Office of Planning has projected future land use changes to the year 2020.
These land use changes are shown on Table El-10 and are projected to occur regardless of
any roadway improvements to US 113. Worcester County does not have an adequate public
facilities (APF) ordinance. An APF ordinance is a land use control measure that requires
adequate schools, transportation facilities, and sewer and water services to be in place to
support development before the development is allowed to occur.
In the northern study area, the 3N alternatives would only provide right-in/right-out access
from driveways and minor service roads. The median incorporated into the design of each
of these alternatives would change the access compared to the unlimited access now
associated with the existing roadway. These four alternatives also have a new partial
cloverleaf interchange which would replace the existing US 113/MD Route 90 interchange.
-------
Z7S 773 Planning Study
New loops and ramps would be located in the northeast and southwest comers of the
interchange. The land area around this interchange is developed or is in agricultural
production.
The 4N Modified alternatives would provide east/west access at a new interchange with MD
90 located west of existing US 113. As currently planned, no driveways or minor service
roads would be given direct access to the new dualized US 113. Median breaks and left turn
bays would be restricted or limited to local public roads. The 3N/4N Modified alternatives
would also provide east/west access at a new interchange with MD 90 located west of
existing US 113 and right-in/right-out access above Bishopville Road. Wetlands, forest and
farmland are adjacent to the location of the proposed interchange associated with these
alternatives (impacts to these resources are tabulated in other sections of this Chapter).
In the southern study area, the additional travel lane associated with the 3S alternatives would
generally increase the efficiency of the movement of goods and services within the corridor.
The 2S-201 Median alternative provides two passing lanes in each direction spaced
approximately 4 miles apart. The median associated with these alternatives would allow only
right-in/right-out access from existing minor access points along US 113.
Existing US 113 currently provides access to developable land. Under the No-Build and TSM
alternatives, developable land presently has access to the northbound and southbound lanes
of US 113. The majority of the land in the study area is zoned for agriculture use (A-l).
Farming activity and minor subdivisions up to five dwelling units are permitted in these
zones. Adding one lane in each direction with the dualize alternatives along existing
alignment (3S and 3N Alternatives) and a passing lane with Alternative 2S-20' Median would
not improve access to developable lands; These alternatives change the existing access by
providing right-in/right-out access only from driveways and minor service roads. The 4N
Modified and 3N/4N Modified alternatives would be controlled access facilities. Because
access will be permitted only at existing public crossroads, no new access to developable
lands is provided. Access management strategies of all alternatives under consideration are
discussed in Chapter H. If land is to be developed, plans must be submitted to local, state or
federal agencies, or a combination thereof, for review, depending on the scale of the project
and appropriate permits obtained prior to approval of the proposed project. A public hearing
is required by the Worcester County Commission for any request for a zoning change. The
Worcester County Commission and the WCPPI office are the local government agencies
responsible for guiding land use.
As previously discussed in the Future Land Use sections in Chapters m and IV, the future
growth of Worcester County is not projected for the US 113 study area. Growth is projected
to occur in the northern and central coastal bay areas of the county located east of the US 113
study area. This growth is not contingent on the dualization of US 113 providing access.
7V-25
-------
US 113 Planning Study
The US 113 corridor was added to SHA's Access Management Program in 1997. Corridors
in this program are eligible to use funds programmed in the Consolidated Transportation
Program for the purchase of access controls along agricultural frontage and in some instances
to purchase residential and commercial property. In the near term, a cross functional team
will meet every few weeks to review all access permit requests in the corridor to make
recommendations on limiting the number of access points and in some situations to
recommend denial of access. The goal of these initiatives is to balance access to adjoining
land with the need to preserve the flow of traffic and to improve safety and capacity of the
highway system.
Through enforcement at the local level of the County's zoning ordinance and subdivision
controls; use of the guidelines established in the County Comprehensive Development Plan;
and implementation of SHA's Access Management Program, County land use objectives can
be achieved, economic and population growth can be accommodated and unplanned
development can be avoided.
The alternatives with a median would also increase indirect impacts to farmland, travel
patterns and community cohesion. The alternatives on new alignment (4N Modified and
3N/4N Modified) would bisect some productive farmland parcels, creating access difficulties
for the property owners. Farmland impacts are discussed in more detail in Chapter IV,
Section D. The alternatives with a median would only allow residents living on US 113 right
in/right out access to and from their driveways. Left turns would be allowed only at
intersections with these alternatives. These alternatives would change the travel patterns for
area residents, emergency vehicles, farm machinery and those who frequent the area for
business or social purposes. The community cohesion would be disrupted temporarily as
area residents would need some time to adjust to a new travel pattern.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are described by the Council on Environmental Quality regulation (40
1508 8(b)) as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of
the action when added to other past, present, and future actions regardless of what agency
(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertaken such actions."
While Ocean City and the coastal bay area have experienced major residential and
commercial development the US 113 study area has remained mostly quiet and rural in
nature. Agriculture continues to be a way of life for many residents in the study area.
Conditions in the study area are not likely to change much in the future as most of the new
development is projected to occur along the coastal bays.
As shown on Table HI-10, total development in Worcester County is projected to increase
by approximately 38 percent between 1990 and 2020. The majority of this development is
anticipated to be new residential development. The northern and central coastal bay areas,
located east of the US 113 study area, are the projected growth areas for Worcester County.
IV-26
-------
175 113 Planning Study
The primary need for the proposed roadway improvements is safety and not traffic capacity
(congestion is only a problem during summer weekends in the design year 2020). The
development of land in the coastal bay areas is not dependent upon this project. Alternatives
that increase the capacity of US 113 would not increase development rates in these areas
since these areas are developed because of their proximity to the coast. Enlarging the capacity
of US 113 is not projected to have an effect on the projected growth of the coastal bay areas.
There are state and county roads in the study area that provide access to the coastal bay areas.
The median associated with the dualize alternatives separates northbound and southbound
traffic, improves the traffic flow and virtually eliminates the chances of head-on collisions
occurring along the roadway. Of the 303,924 acres of land area in Worcester County, a total
of 8 percent (approximately 24,364 acres) of the land area will be developed by 2020
(existing and projected development). These land use projections are not contingent on new
roadway improvements in the US 113 study area. The land use objectives stated in the
Worcester County Comprehensive Development Plan include "encourage new development
projects to locate in or near the existing population centers and service centers (where
planned) but also to discourage development of the rural areas of the County" and "maintain
the rural character of Worcester and its existing population centers, small towns and
villages".
No change in zoning is planned, however with or without the proposed project, and even
under the County's future land use plans which do not include rezoning in these areas, it is
possible to rezone property for alternative land uses.
In addition, SHA has stated that no new access will be provided to the relocated areas of
these alternatives (4N Modified and 3N/4N Modified alternative). This would be consistent
with US 113's proposed state and federal functional classifications.
In the event that both Worcester County and the SHA change their policies on these matters,
then Alternatives 4N Modified and 3N/4N Modified would represent new access supporting
the possible future change in zoning and the resultant development.
The proposed roadway along new alignment would not instigate this development as land
along the existing US 113 roadway currently carries the same potential and yet remains
unchanged.
The potential for natural resources being converted to residential and industrial uses exists
within the US 113 study area due to current zoning classifications. Most of the study area
is zoned for agriculture use (A-l). Minor subdivisions of up to five dwelling units are
permitted per parcel in these areas. In the southern study area, an area of forest and farmland
located between US 113, Castle Hill Road and MD 394 is zoned for high density residential
development (R-4). Low density residential development (R-l) is permitted in an area
currently used as farmland between Orchard and Mason Roads near Ironshire. The potential
IV-27
-------
US 113 Planning Study
for light manufacturing (M-l) exists in an area of farmland between Newark Road, Basket
Switch Road and US 113 as well as an area of farmland and forest located north of Public
Landing Road west of US 113. In the northern study area, an area of forest and farmland
located just south of Kepler Lane between the railroad, US 113 and just north of Pitts Road
is zoned for light manufacturing (M-l). The potential for heavy manufacturing (M-2) exists
just south of Bishopville Road next to the railroad in a forested area. Low density residential
development (E-l) in the form of large lot development (one dwelling unit per two acres)
exists in an area that is mostly farmland just east of Showell. Access to these currently
undeveloped areas is available from US 113. These areas are not dependent upon
improvements to US 113 for access. The role of US 113 presently and in the future is to
provide north and south access to and from these developable lands.
As previously mentioned in the Future Land Use discussion in Chapter HI, there has been
little interest, according to the WCPPI office, to develop large scale commercial or residential
projects in the US 113 study area. The lack of public sewer service throughout most of the
study area is a limiting, although not prohibitive, factor in development along the US 113
corridor. New development is being directed by the WCPPI office towards the northern and
central coastal bay areas east of the study area because most of the people who relocate to
Worcester County want to live on or as close to the water as possible (Morris, 1997).
Improvements to US 113 would provide better access to this growth area, which is linked to
US 113 by MD 90, Racetrack Road, Bishopville Road, Shingle Landing Road, Bunting Road
and Jarvis Road. The dualization of the roadway in the study area would complete the
dualization of US 113 throughout Worcester County, provide better access to the beach
resorts to the east, along with points north and south of the study area and drivers'
expectations would not change along the roadway. In addition, the separation of traffic by
the median with all of the dualized alternatives and Alternative 2S-20' Median virtually
eliminates the likelihood of opposite direction collisions.
The lower coastal plain of the Eastern Shore currently contains approximately 236,000 acres
of non-tidal wetlands. Between 1955 and 1978, this area lost approximately 16,000 acres of
non-tidal wetlands mostly to ditching and channelization, agricultural development, and the
creation of ponds (accounting for 91% of the loss). The loss of wetlands to urbanization
including transportation accounted for 8% of the loss. Some losses were also due to natural
causes (Tiner, 1987). With the passage of state and federal wetland protection laws, the
annual loss of wetlands (tidal and non-tidal) in Maryland has slowed from 1,000 acres per
year to 20 acres per year (Tiner, 1984).
The US 113 corridor is a very old north-south route along the high ground between the
Pocomoke River and Sinepauxent Bay. A roadway was in-place by 1697. The roadway has
undergone many minor and a few major relocations through the years. The construction of
the modern roadway impacted wetlands, farmland, forests and other resources. In an effort
to quantify the impacts to wetlands caused by the reconstruction projects along US 113 in
this century, historical construction plans were reviewed and approximations of acres of
wetlands impacted were made. Using the current wetland designations along existing US
113 (see the figures in Appendix A for these numbers) and grouped by Maryland DNR
IV-28
-------
US 113 Planning Study
watershed number, the following summarizes the wetland impacts associated with the
existing two-lane highway for US 113:
Table IV-4A: APPROXIMATE WETLAND IMPACTS
ASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING US 113
(by Maryland DNR Watershed Number)
WETLAND
NUMBER
WETLAND
IMPACTS
WETLAND
CLASSIFICATION
+ Pocomoke River & Tributaries: DNR #02-13-02-02
W-l
. W-2
W-3
W-7
W-8
W-9
TOTAL
0.2
1,5
0.05
3.1
3.4
0.2
8.5± Acres
PFO
PFO
STREAM
PFO
PFO (Cypress Swamp)
PFO
-
+• Pocomoke River & Tributaries: DNR #02-13-02-05
W-10
0.4± Acres
PFO
+ Coastal Bay Area: #02-13-01-05
W-ll
W-12
W-13
W-14
W-15
W-16
W-17
W-18
W-19
W-20
W-21
W-22
TOTAL
0.02
4.8
0.9
NONE
1.0
Combined with W-15
NONE
1.1
0.4
1.4
0.4
Combined with W-21
10± Acres
STREAM
PFO
PFO
PFO
PFO
PFO
PFO
PFO
•-
IV-29
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-4A (Continued)
WETLAND
WETLAND
IMPACTS
WETLAND
CLASSIFICATION
+ Coastal Bay Area: #02-13-01-02
W-23
W-24
W-25
W-26
W-27
W-28
W-29
W-30
W-31
W-32
W-33
W-34
\V-35
W-36
W-37
W-38
W-39
W-40
0.3
NONE
0.4
NONE
NONE
1.1
NONE
0.02
1.1
NONE
NONE
1.1
NONE
0.5
1.0
Combined with W-37
NONE
0.5
6->- Acres
25± Acres
PFO
PFO
PFO
STREAM
PFO
PFO
PFO
PFO
PFO
-
-
IV-30
-------
US 113 Planning Study
This project will impact up to 38.4 acres of wetlands (out of a county total of 21,805 acres
of wetland), up to 111 acres of forests (out of a county total of 165,489 acres of forest), and
up to 218 acres of productive farmland (out of a county total of 99,716 acres of farmland).
Any new development, including roadway construction, that impacts wetlands and forestland
will require mitigation. Wetland mitigation is required in accordance with the no net loss of
wetlands policy. Much of the wetland mitigation that is required for the US 113 roadway
improvements may occur at a 2:1 ratio to obtain no net loss of wetland resources. The
construction of required wetland mitigation is likely to cause additional impacts to farmland.
Maryland's Forest Conservation Act requires reforestation and/or afforestation when
forestland is lost as a result of new development which will minimize forest impacts by this
project and other development in the study area.
There are currently no planned federal actions located in or adjacent to the study area. As part
of the State's 1997-2002 Consolidated Transportation Program, a safety study along MD 90
between US 50 and US 113 has been recommended along with the planned construction of
safety improvements and a median barrier along 4.4 miles of MD 90 east of US 113. The
MD 90 safety study would inventory the existing roadway conditions and recommend
courses of actions to improve safety. If the safety recommendations of the study are
implemented, it is anticipated that a better connection between US 113 and MD 90 would be
made. The safety improvements associated with MD 90 east of US 113 are also anticipated
to provide a safer and improved connection between the two roadways.
C. Cultural Resources
1.
Historic Structures
Historic resources in the study area were identified and evaluated in accordance with the
requirements of 36 CFR 800.4 for each alternative under consideration. Table IV-5 summarizes
the effects of the various construction alternatives on identified historic standing structures. The
specific effects of each alternative are described below, and the overall impacts on historic
resources of each alternative are evaluated. The Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) rendered an
adverse effect determination (see Chapter VI, MHT letter April 23,1997) for the 3N alternatives
and for alternatives 4N Modified and 3N/4N, the Combination Alternative, as identified on the
table below.
IV-31
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-5: Summary of Impacts to Historic Structures
Alternative
IS -No-Build
2S - TSM
2S-20' Median
3S-20' Median
3S-341 Median
IN - No-build
2N - TSM
3N-20' Median / 50
MPH
3N-341 Median / 50
MPH
3N-201 Median / 60
MPH
3N-341 Median / 60
MPH
4N Modified-201
Median
4N Modified-341
Median
3N/4N Modified- 20'
Median
3N/4N Modified -34'
•>.-,.. . Impact by Alternative
v -.Historic Resource Inventory Number
WO-283
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Adverse
Adverse
Adverse
Adverse
No
Effect
No
Effect
No
Effect
No
Effect
WO-472
No
Effect
No
Effect
No
Effect
n/a
n/a
No
Effect
No
Effect
Adverse
Adverse
Adverse
Adverse
No
Effect
No
Effect
No
Effect
No
Effect
WO-23
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Adverse
Adverse
Adverse
Adverse
Adverse
Adverse
Adverse
Adverse
WO-284
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Adverse
Adverse
Adverse
Adverse
NAE
NAE
No
Effect
No
Effect
WO-289
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Adverse
Adverse
Adverse
Adverse
No
Effect
No
Effect
No
Effect
No
Effect
WO-479
n/a
No
Effect
No
Effect
n/a
n/a
n/a
No
Effect
NAE
NAE
NAE
NAE
NAE
'NAE
NAE
NAE
*NAE = No Adverse Effect
WO-283 - Hale Farm/ Mariner Farm
WO-472 - Vic's Country Store
WO-23 - St. Martin's Church
WO-284 - Lemuel Showell House
WO-289 - Showell Store
WO-479 - Transpeninsular
IV-32
-------
US 113 Planning Study
St. Martin's Church. All of the 3N alternatives, 4N Modified alternatives and, 3N/4N Modified
alternatives, are within the area of potential effect of St. Martin's Church (WO-23). which is on
the National Register. These alternatives share an alignment segment south of Racetrack Road,
but begin to diverge on the north side of the readjust north of the church. The resource is on a
slight rise above existing US 113 as the highway descends to cross Church Branch to the north.
The area through which 4N Modified and 3N/4N Modified alternatives would cross is at the
same elevation as the resource.
TSM improvements consisting of a skid resistant pavement overlay and rumble slots along the
centerline and outside edges of the roadway, are proposed within existing right-of-way.. Because
the resource already fronts on a major highway, it does not appear that these minor
improvements will affect the resource or substantially alter its setting. The location, setting, and
use of the resource will remain the same. For these reasons, MHT concurred that the TSM
improvements will have no effect on the St. Martin's Church.
No right-of-way will be acquired from the resource under any of these alternatives, however, the
Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) has determined that the 3N, 4N Modified, and 3N/4N
Modified alternatives will all affect its setting. Under all of these alternatives, the new roadway
would be wider than the existing, and would have an adverse visual impact. This visual impact
will likely occur, due to the placement of the alternatives in agricultural and forested land east
of the resource. The Maryland Historical Trust has determined that this visual effect will be
adverse, because the increased width of the roadway would cause a change in the historic setting
(March 18, 1997 letter to SHA).
Regarding audible impacts, the predicted noise level for a No-Build scenario is higher at 69.9
dBA than the levels predicted for the 3N alternatives (65.3 dBA) and for the 4N Modified and
3N/4N Modified alternatives (63.7 dBA). Additionally, the predicted noise level for the 4N
Modified and 3N/4N Modified alternatives is lower than the existing level at the resource (64.9
dBA).
Hale Farm/Mariner Farm. The alternatives proposed in the area of potential effect of the
National Register eligible Hale/Mariner Farm (WO-283) include the 3N, 4N Modified, and
3N/4N Modified alternatives.
TSM improvements consisting of a skid resistant pavement overlay and rumble slots along the
centerline and outside edges of the roadway, are proposed within existing right-of-way. Because
the resource already fronts on a major highway, it does not appear that these minor
improvements will affect the resource or substantially alter its setting. The location, setting, and
use of the resource will remain the same. For these reasons, MHT concurred that the TSM
improvements will have no effect on the Hale Farm/Mariner Farm.
IV-33
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Each of the 3N alternatives will affect the setting and use of the resource. The effect will be
adverse because elements of the resource's integrity - its design, setting, materials, workmanship,
and feeling - will be diminished. Approximately 17,500 square feet along the west edge will be
acquired for right-of-way, amounting to roughly 14 percent of the total square footage of the
historic property.
In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.9, this action constitutes an adverse effect because a portion
of the historic resource will be physically destroyed and altered, and visual, audible, and
atmospheric elements out of character with the resource and its setting will be introduced.
Construction of Alternative 3N will result in locating the highway 60 feet closer to the existing
residential structure within the site boundary (i.e. at a distance of 465 feet instead of the existing
520 feet). A portion of the yard, entrance driveway, and ornamental plantings will be removed,
as will the two brick walls flanking the driveway. Regarding audible impacts, the predicted
noise level (56.0 dBA) will increase over the existing level (53.9 dB A) and that of the predicted
for a No-Build scenario (54.2 dBA). For the above reasons, MHT has determined that all of the
3N alternatives will have an adverse effect on the Hale Farm/Mariner Farm.
The 4N Modified and 3N/4N Modified alternatives will not affect the location, setting, or use
of the resource. These alternatives, which share the same alignment in this segment, will he
much farther from the resource boundary than the existing highway (some 565 feet farther to the
northwest and 1,000 feet or more to the west and southwest). No right-of-way will be acquired
from the resource boundary; however, right-of-way will be taken from the larger tax parcel
containing the resource. It does not appear that a visual impact on the setting outside the
boundary will occur due to the distance involved and the placement of the alignment in areas
already concealed by tree lines and plantings. Where sections of the new road will be visible -
to the southwest and northwest - the views will be distant, and the road will be on existing grade.
In addition, the ornamental plantings along the resource's south and north boundaries will
partially obscure some views in those directions. The end result will be a road farther from and
better concealed from the resource. This will provide the resource with an ample new buffer.
Views toward the new road will be similar to those available at present. Due to the distance,
which is more than 970 feet, noise levels should be much reduced in the area of the resource.
For these reasons, the MHT has concurred with the determination that the 4N Modified and
3N/4N Modified alternatives will have no effect on the Hale/Mariner Farm.
Lemuel Showell House. The alternatives proposed in the area of potential effect of the National
Register eligible Lemuel Showell House (WO-284) include the 3N, 4N Modified, and 3N/4N
Modified alternatives.
TSM improvements consisting of a skid resistant pavement overlay and rumble slots along the
centerline and outside edges of the roadway, are proposed within existing right-of-way. Because
the resource already fronts on a major highway, it does not appear that these minor
improvements will affect the resource or substantially alter its setting. The location, setting, and
use of the resource will remain the same. For these reasons, MHT concurred that the TSM
improvements will have no effect on the Lemuel Showell House.
- ~ IV-34 ~~
-------
US 113 Planning Study
The 3N alternatives will not affect the location, setting (within the historic boundary), or use of
the resource. • These proposed alternatives will lie some 90 feet farther west of the resource
boundary than the existing highway (Figures 2 and 7). Access to the new road will be provided
via a four-way intersection at Pitts Road (existing US 113 will become a local access road). No
right-of-way will be acquired from the resource boundary.
An adverse visual impact on the setting will occur, however, due to changes in the setting
necessitated by the construction of the road. Alternative 3N will require the removal of the
Showell Store (WO-289) at the intersection of US 113 and Pitts Road and the removal of a non-
eligible historic dwelling across US 113 from the resource (part of the Showell Survey District,
previously determined not eligible for the National Register). This will result in the loss of the
west side of the cluster of buildings at the intersection that helps to define the character of
Showell and will open up views to the west and northwest that currently do not exist. A line of
small trees on the west side of US 113 may provide some concealment; however, this line will
be removed some 500 feet to the south as the 3N alternatives rejoin the existing US 113
alignment. Although the new road will be farther from the resource, the changes in the setting
across US 113 would appear to negate this benefit. In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.9, the
construction of the 3N alternatives will constitute an adverse effect because visual elements out
of character with the resource and its setting will be introduced. Regarding audible impacts, the
predicted levels associated with 3N alternatives (64.1 dBA) will be slightly lower than the
existing level (65.7 dBA) and those predicted for a No-Build scenario (66.4 dBA). For the
reasons noted above, MHT has concurred with the determination that the 3N alternatives will
have an adverse effect on the Lemuel Showell House.
The 4N Modified and 3N/4N Modified alternatives will not affect the location, setting (within
the historic boundary), or use of the resource. The alternatives, which share the same alignment
in this segment, will lie approximately 585 feet east of the resource boundary. Additional right-
of-way will not be acquired from the resource boundary. A visual impact on the setting will
likely occur, however, due to the placement of the alternative in open land east of the resource
that is presently used for crops and forest. For a number of reasons, it does not appear that this
visual effect will be adverse. First, the resource already fronts on a major highway and is located
at a major intersection. Second, the new alignment will be farther from the resource, affording
it a buffer zone that currently does not exist. Third, the new alignment will run at existing grade.
Fourth, a heavy buffer of mixed evergreen/deciduous vegetation currently shields views from the
resource to the north and northeast, and this buffer will remain in place under the new alignment.
Fifth, non-historic buildings currently obscure views from the resource to the south, and these
will remain in place under the new alternative. Sixth, views of the fields and tree lines farther
east will still be possible with the new road in place. Concerning noise impacts, the predicted
noise level for the 4N Modified and 3N/4N Modified alternatives (53.6 dBA) is substantially
lower than the levels predicted for the 3N alternatives, the No-Build scenario, and existing US
113. For the above reasons, MHT determined that the 4N Modified and 3N/4N Modified
alternatives will have no adverse effect on the Lemuel Showell House.
7V-35
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Showell Store. The alternatives proposed for the area of the National Register eligible Showell
Store (WO-289) include the 3N, 4N Modified, and 3N/4N Modified alternatives. The resource
is on a slight rise above existing US 113. The 3N alternatives would run at this elevation, while
the 4N Modified, and 3N/4N Modified alternatives would run at the slightly lower grade equal
to that of existing US 113.
The 3N alternatives will affect the location, setting, and use of the resource. The effect will be
adverse because all elements of the resource's integrity will be destroyed by demolition of the
resource. The setting outside the historic resource boundary will also be adversely affected
through the loss of the resource and a non-eligible historic dwelling on the south side of Pitts
Road (part of the Showell Survey District, WO-286, previously determined not eligible for the
National Register). The loss of these two buildings will remove the western edge of the cluster
of buildings at the US 113/Pitts Road intersection, a cluster that defines the character of Showell.
In addition, views to the west and northwest will be opened up where previously they were
contained by surrounding buildings. Noise levels for the Showell Store were not monitored
ormodeled because the structure will be taken under the 3N alternatives. Additionally, noise and
atmospheric levels would be essentially the same as those for the Lemuel Showell House which
is just across the street from this site. For the above reasons, MHT concurred with the opinion
that the 3N alternatives will have an adverse effect on the Showell Store.
Investigations to date indicate that the prehistoric and historic archeological site 18WO209
identified on the property of the Showell Store is potentially eligible for the National Register,
based on criterion D (ability to provide important information). The investigations indicate that
the site does not warrant preservation in place. The 3N alternatives will adversely impact 18
WO209. The concurrence of the Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will be
solicited on this determination.
The 4N Modified and 3N/4N Modified alternatives will not affect the location, setting, or use
of the resource. These alternatives, which share the same alignment in this segment, will lie
much farther from the resource boundary than the existing highway (some 865 feet farther to the
east). No right-of-way will be acquired from the resource boundary. It does not appear that a
visual impact on the setting will occur due to the distance involved and the placement of the
alignment in areas already concealed by buildings, tree lines, and plantings. The end result will
be a road farther from the resource and better concealed from the resource. This will provide the
resource will an ample new buffer zone than today. Views toward the new road will be the same
as those available at present. Due to the distance, audible levels would be much reduced in the
area of the resource. For these reasons, MHT concurred that the 4N Modified and 3N/4N
Modified alternatives will have no effect on the Showell Store.
Vic's Country Store. The alternatives proposed in the area of potential effect of National
Register eligible Vic's Country Store (WO-472) include the 3N, 4N Modified, and 3N/4N
Modified alternatives.
IV-36
-------
US 113 Planning Study
No-Build improvements have been proposed for the intersection of US 113 and Friendship Road.
These will consist of a northbound acceleration/deceleration lane and a southbound bypass lane.
TSM improvements, consisting of a skid resistant pavement overlay, rumble slots along the
centerline and outside edges of the roadway, and painted stop lines at Carey Road and Jones
Road. All of the improvements will be constructed within existing right-of-way. Due to the fact
that the resource already fronts a major highway within a major intersection, MHT concurred that
these minor improvements will have no effect on the resource or substantially alter its setting,
location, or use.
The 3N alternatives will affect the setting and use of the resource, and the effect will be adverse
because right-of-way acquisition will diminish or destroy its integrity. The alternative calls for
the edge of pavement for the northbound lanes to be moved closer to the resource. The new
lanes will require acquisition of approximately 13,440 square feet of additional right-of-way,
equaling roughly 27% of the historic property area, and may require demolition of the structure.
For the above reasons, MHT concurred that the 3N alternatives will have an adverse effect on
Vic's Country Store.
A visual impact on the setting outside the boundary will also occur, due to shifting of the
northbound lanes to the east and the provision for southbound lanes on the west side of US 113
(the existing highway will be incorporated into the northbound lanes and the median in this area).
For a number of reasons, it does not appear that this visual effect will be adverse. First, the
resource already fronts on a major highway and is located within a major intersection. Second,
much of the area to be used for the northbound lanes is already paved in front of the resource.
Third, the new alignment will follow the same grade as the existing highway. Fourth, the
buildings and landscape features on both sides of US 113 will be retained, except for the eastern
edge of a large wooded tract on the west side of US 113 north of Carey Road. The majority of
this tract will remain, however. Fifth, views of the fields, tree lines, and buildings beyond the
existing highway will still be possible with the new alignment in place. Concerning noise
impacts, the predicted noise levels for the 3N alternatives (70.6 dBA) and the No-Build
improvements (69.7) are slightly lower than the existing level (72.1 dBA).
Investigations to date indicate that historic period archeological site 18WO213 identified on the
property of Vic's Country Store is ineligible for the National Register, and gave no indication
that the site warrants preservation in place. The 3N alternatives will not impact significant
archeological resources. The concurrence of the Maryland SHPO will be solicited on this
determination.
The 4N Modified and 3N/4N Modified alternatives will not affect the location, setting, or use
of the resource. These alternatives, which share the same alignment in this segment, will lie
much farther from the resource boundary than the existing highway (some 2,600 feet farther to
the west). No right-of-way will be acquired from the resource boundary. It does not appear that
a visual impact on the setting outside the boundary will occur due to the distance involved and
the placement of the alignment in areas already concealed by buildings, tree lines, and plantings.
The end result will be a road farther from the resource and better concealed from the resource.
IV-37
-------
US 113 Planning Study
This will provide the resource with an ample buffer not presently provided. Views toward the
new road will be the same as those available at present. Due to the distance (more than 2,600
feet), audible and atmospheric levels should be much reduced in the area of the resource. For
these reasons, MHT concurred that the 4N Modified and 3N/4N Modified Alternatives will have
no effect on Vic's Country Store.
Transpeninsular Line Marker. The alternatives proposed in the area of potential effect of the
National Register eligible Transpeninsular Line Marker (WO-479) include the 3N, 4N Modified,
and 3N/4N Modified alternatives. All of these alternatives share the same alignment in the
vicinity of this site.
TSM improvements, consisting of a skid resistant pavement overlay, rumble slots along the
centerline and outside edges of the roadway and the addition of a southbound acceleration lane
from Morris Road and oversized intersection warning and stop signs, are proposed within
existing right-of-way. Because the resource already fronts on a major highway, it does not
appear that these minor improvements will affect the resource or substantially alter its setting.
The location, setting, and use of the resource will remain the same. For these reasons, MHT
concurred that the TSM improvements will have no effect on the Transpeninsular Line Marker.
The 3N, 4N Modified and 3N/4N Modified alternatives, will not affect the location, setting
(within the historic boundary), or use of the resource. These alternatives call for the edge of
pavement for the northbound lanes in front of the resource to remain as is. No right-of-way will
be required.
A visual impact on the setting outside the boundary will likely occur, however, due to the
shifting of the southbound lanes and the incorporation of a much larger median. For a number
of reasons, it does not appear that this visual effect will be adverse. First, the resource already
fronts on a major highway and has direct views of the wider US 113 alignment in Delaware.
Second, the new alignment will follow the same grade as the existing highway. Third, the
buildings and landscape features on both sides of US 113 will be retained. Fourth, views of the
west side of US 113 from the resource will still be possible with the new alignment in place.
Concerning audible impacts, the predicted noise levels for the dualize alternatives (66.6 dBA)
are slightly higher than the existing levels of 65 dBA and No-Build of 62 dBA range (see Table
IV-18). For the above reasons, MHT has concurred that the alternatives will have no adverse
effect on the Transpeninsular Line Marker.
Maryland/Delaware State Line Marker. The only alternatives proposed for the area of the
Maryland/Delaware State Line Marker (WO-480) are the 3N/4N Modified alternatives at the
Transpeninsular Line Marker (see above). The eastern edge of the alternatives will be some
1,500 feet west of the resource. The alternative will not affect the location, setting, or use of the
resource. Due to the distance involved and the presence of a large wooded buffer between the
resource and the alternatives, there will be no visual, audible, or atmospheric impact on the
resource. Alternatives 3N/4N Modified are anticipated to have no effect on the Maryland/
Delaware State Line Marker.
IV-38
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Summary of Impacts to Structures
From the standpoint of historic standing structures, the 4N Modified and 3N/4N Modified
alternatives all avoid adverse effects to four other structures that are impacted by the 3N
alternatives: Hale/Mariner Farm, Lemuel Showell House, Showell Store, and Vic's Country
Store.
2. Archeological Sites
Identification of archeological resources have been carried out in accordance with the
requirements of 36 CFR 800.4 for each alternative under consideration.
The Phase IB archaeological survey of the US 113 corridor covered all of the high-probability
areas for which access was obtained, as well as 20 percent of the low-probability areas. The
survey identified 18 potentially significant archeological sites that might be impacted by one or
more of the alternatives.
IV-39
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Preliminary eligibility recommendations are summarized in Table F/-6.
Table IV-6: Preliminary NRHP Recommendations For US 113 Sites
(Preliminary NRHP Assessment)
-
Components
Prehistoric
Historic
============
Age
======================
Woodland
Unknown
Prehistoric Total
18th- 19th century
18th-20th century
19th century
19th-20th century
20th century
Unknown
Historic Total
— •
Probably Not
Eligible
2
5
7
2
3
9
6
3
0
23*
20
Possibly Eligible
,..., i . .1 i -i" ••" " —?•
3*
3
6*#
5
2
3#
5
1
0
16#
19#
* National Register eligibility assessment of three historic/prehistoric period sites was based on
the potential of the prehistoric component only.
# One site potentially eligible prehistoric/historic period site is outside the Area of Potential
Effects of the undertaking.
IV-40
-------
US 113 Planning Study
About one-half of the recorded prehistoric sites are considered potentially eligible for the
Register under criterion D, based on their ability to provide important information about the past.
The Phase I archeological survey indicates that the remainder of the prehistoric sites lack the
artifact density, patterned artifact distributions, or intact deposits necessary to provide significant
data concerning the prehistoric occupation of the Eastern Shore. For these reasons, they are
unlikely to yield important information, and are not considered eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places.
Survey data suggest that about one-third of the historic period sites are potentially eligible for
the National Register under criterion D, for their information potential. The presence of structural
features, intact subplowzone remains, and information-rich artifact assemblages were used to
identify potentially significant historic sites. More intensive investigations will be needed at all
18 potentially significant sites within the APE to conclusively evaluate their National Register
status. The Phase I archeological survey indicates that the remainder of the historic period sites
lack the artifact density, patterned artifact distributions, or intact deposits necessary to provide
important information about the history of the region. For these reasons, they are unlikely to yield
important information, and are not considered eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
Alternative 2S-20' Median will impact 2 archeological sites that are potentially eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places: 18WO190 and 18WO196.
Alternatives 3S will impact 10 archeological sites that may be eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places: 18WO181, 18WO183, 18WO184, 18WO185, 18WO190, 18WO191,
18WO196, 18WO201, 18WO203, and 18WO204. Alternative 3N will impact 6 archeological
sites that may be eligible for the National Register: 18WO194, 18WO195, 18WO197,
18WO202,18WO209, and 18WO214. One of the latter will also be impacted by Alternative 4N
Modified, which will affect a total of 2 archeological sites that may be eligible for the National
Register: 18WO193 and 18WO212. The same two potentially eligible National Register sites
would be impacted by the 3N/4N Modified alternatives: 18WO193 and 18WO212.
Based on the results of Phase I survey, all potentially significant archeological resources that
might be impacted by the project are considered important chiefly for the information they
contain. At this stage of work, there is no evidence to suggest that any of the sites warrant
preservation in place, although confirmation of this must await completion of Phase n
investigations. Phase n site evaluation will be conducted once a selected alternative is identified.
Any mitigation efforts required for archeological resources would be accomplished chiefly
through data recovery investigations, along with other appropriate measures such as
interpretation of the results of investigations. Consideration will also be given to avoidance
and/or minimization measures as warranted.
IV-41
-------
US 113 Planning Study
D. Farmlands
Active farmland (including properties which raise poultry), prime farmland soils and soils of
statewide importance will be impacted as a result of this project. Based on the current alignments
of the proposed alternatives, no farming operations will be put out of business. Table IV-7 is a
summary of farmland and soil impacts.
In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), a Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating form has been completed for this project and evaluated by the Worcester County NRCS office
to fulfill FPPA compliance. On this form, the amount in the block 'Total Acres in Site" was derived
from SHA right-of-way calculations which do not include right-of-way owned by SHA. Farmland
impacts, however, include farmland within SHA right-of-way limits. A copy of the completed rating
form along with the rationale used for the evaluation of the site assessment criteria is included in
Appendix B.
According to the FPPA, the USDA recommends that the alternatives scoring more than 160 points
be given higher levels of consideration for protection and alternatives receiving less than 160 points
be given a minimal level of consideration for protection. Alternatives 4N-20' Median, 4N-34'
Median, 3N/4N - 20' Median and 3N/4N -34' median all scored above 160 points. The USDA
recommends for alternatives scoring 160 or more points that agencies consider alternatives that
would serve the proposed purpose but convert either fewer acres of farmland or other farmland that
has a lower alternative value.
In the southern study area, Alternative 3S-341 Median would directly impact the most agricultural
land (115 acres) of all the proposed alternatives. The 3N/4N-34' Median alternative would directly
impact the most agricultural land of (61.9 acres) of all of the proposed alternatives in the northern
study area. The IN alternative directly impacts approximately 0.5 acres of farmland on one parcel
associated with the relocation of Bunting Road. The 2S alternative would only require small sliver
takes of farmland for bypass and acceleration/deceleration lanes. The proposed dualize and 2S-20'
Median alternatives would generally improve access on US 113 by allowing faster moving vehicles
to safely pass slower moving farm machinery; however, slow moving farm machinery requiring
access to the opposite side of the roadway from which they are traveling would have to cross 2 or
3 lanes (depending on if the equipment is traveling on the shoulder or right lane) to get to the left
turn lane at an intersection in order to make a U-turn.
The alternatives on new alignment are the only alternatives that would indirectly impact farmland.
These alternatives would bisect the same six farmland parcels, creating accessibility difficulties for
the property owner. The amount of indirect impacts are shown on Table IV-7.
SHA will look at ways to minimize, where possible, the amount of farmland acreage necessary while
maintaining required safety standards. Accessibility concerns will be addressed on a property-by-
property basis during final design. Just compensation at fair market value will be offered to farm
owners whose property is needed for right-of-way or for acquired property that is too small to
profitably farm.
_ /y_42
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-7: Farmland Impact Summary
Alternatives
IS -No-Build
2S - TSM
2S-20' Median
3S-20' Median
3S-34' Median
IN -No-Build
2N - TSM
3N-201 Median 50 MPH
3N-34' Median 50 MPH
3N-201 Median 60 MPH
3N-34' Median 60 MPH
4N Modified-20' Median
4N Modified-34' Median
3N/4N Modified - 20'
Median
3N/4N Modified - 34'
Median
Subject .
Prime
Farmland
Soils
Impacted
(acres)
0.0
0.2
20.0
39.4
43.8
0.5
0.0
42.6
47.9
47.9
53.2
103.4
114.9
107.1
119.0
Soils of
Statewide
Importance
Impacted
(acres)
0.0
0.0
10.0
19.4
21.6
0.0
0.0
31.5
35.5
35.5
39.4
81.1
90.1
68.4
76.0
Direct
Productive
Farmland
Impacts
(acres)
0.0
0.2
19.8
103.5
115.0
0.5
0.0
34.9
39.2
39.2
43.6
55.0
61.1
55.7
61.9
Indirect
Farmland
Impacts*
(acres)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.0
40.9
47.1
40.9
Number of
Parcels
Directly
Impacted
0
3
19
48
48
1
0
24
24
24
24
19
19
20
20
Number
of Parcels
Indirectly
Impacted
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
6
6
Note:
Indirect impacts are a result of the alternatives bisecting a productive farmland parcel which may
create accessibility difficulties for farmers.
Additional farmland acreage may be required for wetland mitigation requirements.
IV-43
-------
US 113 Planning Study
E. Soils, Geology and Topography
The No-Build and TSM Alternatives will have minor localized impacts to soils where
acceleration/deceleration, bypass and turning lanes are constructed. These small projects may
require earth disturbances of up to 0.25 acres for construction. No bypass or turning lanes are
planned for the southern study area under either Alternative IS (No-Build) or Alternative 2S (TSM).
Alternative IN (No-Build) in the northern study area includes the planned relocation of the Jarvis
Road intersection as well as the construction of three acceleration/deceleration lanes, two turning
lanes, and four bypass lanes at various intersections. Alternative 2N (TSM) includes the construction
of one additional acceleration/deceleration lane and one bypass lane. These minor disturbances are
expected to have minimal impact on the soils, geology and topography. Impacts to soils will be
minimized through the strict use sediment and erosion control measures.
It is anticipated that the proposed construction of 2S-201 Median and the dualize alternatives will not
substantially impact soils, topography, or geology. The Othello and Mattapex soil types are
classified as highly erodible soils and are encountered on approximately one-third of the project area.
The remaining project area is comprised of moderately erodible soils. The Othello, Fallsington, and
Pocomoke soils comprise approximately one-half of the project area and are labeled as hydric soils
by the US Department of Agriculture. These soils and the majority of the soils found on the project
area have a high water table. Foundation soils are expected to deteriorate if exposed to air, frost,
water and construction activities.
The low relief of the land allows for little runoff of excess precipitation during periods of increased
precipitation. Therefore, soils adjacent to roadways may become saturated during these times.
The soils to be encountered along the study area consist of sandy loam and silt loam underlain by
loamy sand and sand. Based upon SCS testing, the maximum density of the soils ranges from 90
to 125 pounds per cubic foot. The optimum moisture content of the soils at these maximum
densities ranges from 7 to 18 percent. The compatibility of the soils is dependent on the composition
of the soil and the moisture at the time of compaction. It is anticipated that the soils available for
roadway construction will be suitable and can be compacted to specification requirements (SCS,
1973).
Erosion control techniques such as infiltration, sediment basins and traps, and silt fencing will be
employed to control soil erosion. To minimize deterioration, a rnud mat may be placed to serve as
a working platform for construction activities in wet areas. All areas of exposed soil will be
vegetatively or structurally stabilized as soon as practical. A Maryland Department of the
Environment approved stormwater management plan will also be required for this project. The
stormwater management plan will include quality management for stormwater runoff prior to
infiltration into the groundwater.
IV-44
-------
US 113 Planning Study
F.
Groundwater Resources
The No-Build and TSM Alternatives will not have any impact on groundwater resources.
It is anticipated that the proposed construction of any of the dualization alternatives will not
substantially impact the ground water table because the entire study area is underlain by aquifers
which are recharged throughout the area. The rate of recharge of water to aquifers depends on the
quantity of water available for recharge, the topography of the land and the permeability of the soils
which water will travel. The low relief in topography and the generally high permeability of the soil
allow for little runoff and large quantities of water to enter the ground. . .
The majority of water to recharge aquifers comes from precipitation that filters through the soil or
water that seeps in from streams. Precipitation will recharge aquifers to sufficient levels throughout
the year. Fluctuations of the groundwater level depend on variations in temperature and
precipitation. Aquifers in this region are generally saturated. It is anticipated that a minimal change
in relief and decrease in recharge area will not be significantly affect water recharge to the aquifers
in this region. Additional usage of ground water as a result of an increase in growth and population
is not anticipated to significantly affect the water supply (Maryland Department of Geology, Mining
and Water Resources, 1955).
Adverse impacts to groundwater quality during construction of a Build Alternative will be mitigated
through strict adherence to the Maryland Department of the Environment's (MDE) erosion and
sediment control procedures.
G. Surface Water Resources
Surface water resources consisting mainly of major streams, minor drainage ditches, and intermittent
stream channels, may be impacted by pollutants within highway runoff. The constituents of this
runoff may include particulates, metals, oil and grease, organics, nutrients and other substances.
Table IV-8 lists common highway runoff constituents and their primary sources.
The potential for impacts from highway runoff to existing surface water quality is determined by
pollutant concentrations. These concentrations depend largely on the site conditions, the runoff
event, and the rate of pollutant accumulation. Relevant site characteristics include: percent of
impervious area, shoulder and/or curb type, drainage ditch lining, and the presence of retention or
detention basins.
The TSM Alternatives are not expected to cause any disruption of major or minor stream systems.
Alternative 2S-20' Median and the dualize alternatives will require the crossing of several streams,
tributaries and other drainageways within the study areas. The perennial streams have water quality
which is conducive to the support of aquatic plant materials, migratory fish species as well as other
IV-45
-------
US 113 Planning Study
aquatic organisms. Other waterways are minor drainage ditches or intermittent streams which
provide spatially and temporarily limited habitats for aquatic organisms. Table IV-9 lists the number,
probable type, and preliminary size of each proposed stream crossing.
During construction of the alternatives, surface water quality may be temporarily impacted by
increased sedimentation associated with grading operations. This impact will be temporary in
nature, and limited to the construction period.
The potential toxic effects of certain constituents in highway runoff on biota within receiving waters
may be related to inorganic chemicals such as heavy metals, salts, etc., and organic compounds such
as oil and grease, herbicide and pesticides. These constituents can create problems with the
physiology of aquatic organisms leading to stress, disease and mortality. Toxicity by runoff
pollutants decreases bethic community diversity, and shifts community structure from pollution
intolerant groups to pollution tolerant groups. Very toxic substances eliminate aquatic biota until
dilution, dissipation or volitization reduces the concentration below the toxic threshold, (FHWA,
1976). Toxic effects at any level of the aquatic foodchain are seriously detrimental to the entire
system.
Pollutant accumulation levels are determined by the initial surface pollutant load, the pollutant
accumulation rate and the time of accumulation. The majority of pollutants are released from
vehicles, therefore accumulation rates are largely dependent on the volume and velocity of traffic,
(Kobriger et al., 1981). Following a large storm event, initial pollutant levels are considered to be
negligible Runoff from highways with high ADT levels has been associated with the toxic effects
on aquatic biota [Winter and Gidley, 1980 (185,000 ADT)]; Portele et al., 1982, (50,000 ADT),
whereas runoff from rural low ADT highways has been associated with only minor effects to aquatic
biota (Dupis et al., 1984). Because the ADT for all of the US 113 alternatives (including No-Build
and TSM) in the design year 2020 are predicted to range from 5,000 to 20,000 only minor impacts
would be expected.
Impacts to the aquatic biota of the streams located within the study areas will include a variety of
temporary and permanent construction impacts which will be both and may impact local biota in
various ways. Impacts to the streams and their biota may result from structures such as culverts,
pipes, piers and abutments. Stream crossings using culverts and/or pipes have the potential to disrupt
fish migrations, cause streambank and cause substrate instability which could lead to the loss of
invertebrate biota and suitable fish habitat, especially fish spawning habitats. Measures to improve
fish passage may include maintenance of low flow channels, provision of baffles, and the
suppression of the culvert bottom to maintain a natural stream bottom.
IV-46
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-8: Common Highway Runoff Constituents and Their Primary Sources*
1
Constituent 1
Particulates
Nitrogen, Phosphorous
^ead
Zinc
ron
Copper
Cadmium
Chromium
Nickel
Manganese
Bromide
Cyanide
Sodium, Calcium
Chloride
Sulphate
Petroleum
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Pesticides, Pathogenic bacteria
(indicators)
Rubber
Asbestos
Primary Sources
Pavement wear, vehicles, atmosphere, maintenance
Atmosphere, roadside fertilizer application
Leaded gasoline (auto exhaust), tire wear (lead oxide filler material),
lubricating oil and grease, bearing wear
Tire wear (filler material), motor oil (stabilizing additive), grease
Auto body rust, steel highway structures (guardrails, etc.), moving
engine parts
Metal plating, bearing and bushing wear, moving engine parts, brake
lining wear, fungicides and insecticides applied by maintenance
operations
Tire wear (filler material), insecticide application
Metal plating, moving engine parts, brake lining wear
Diesel fuel and gasoline (exhaust), lubricating oil, metal plating,
bushing wear, brake lining wear, asphalt paving
Moving engine parts
Exhaust
Anticake compound (ferric ferrocyanide, Prussian Blue or sodium
ferrocyanide, Yellow Prussiate of Soda) used to keep deicing salt
granular
Deicing salts, grease
Deicing salts
Roadway blends, fuel, deicing salts
Spills, leaks or blow-by of motor lubricants, antifreeze and hydraulic
fluids, asphalt surface leachate
Spraying of highway right-of-ways, background atmospheric
deposition, PCB catalyst in synthetic tires
Soil, litter, bird droppings and trucks hauling livestock and stockyard
waste
Tire wear
Clutch and brake lining wear
* Source: Kobriger, 1984
IV-47
-------
US J13 Planning Study
Table IV-9: Number, Probable Type, and Preliminary Size
of Stream Crossings by Alternative
====p
Alternative
=3======
IS -No-Build
2S - TSM
2S - 20' Median
3S - 20" Median
]3S - 34' Median
= • — r-
Stream Crossing
===i:
Purnell Branch
Poorhouse Branch
Five Mile Branch
Massey Branch
Porter Creek
Goody Hill Branch
Catbird Creek
Poplartown Branch
Purnell Branch
Poorhouse Branch
Five Mile Branch
Massey Branch
Porter Creek
Goody Hill Branch
Catbird Creek
Poplartown Branch
Purnell Branch
Poorhouse Branch
Five Mile Branch
Massey Branch
Porter Creek
Goody Hill Branch
Catbird Creek
Poplartown Branch
Purnell Branch
Poorhouse Branch
Five Mile Branch
Massey Branch
Porter Creek
Goody Hill Branch
Catbird Creek
Poplartown Branch
Purnell Branch
Poorhouse Branch
Five Mile Branch
Massey Branch
Porter Creek
Goody Hill Branch
Catbird Creek
Poplartown Branch
i
TypeandLength 1
of Crossing 1
Box Culvert
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Box Culvert
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Box Culvert
Corregated Metal Pipe
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Box Culvert
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Box Culvert
Corregated Metal Pipe
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Box Culvert
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Box Culvert
Corregated Metal Pipe
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Box Culvert
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Box Culvert
Corregated Metal Pipe
Box Culvert
Box Culvert Extension
Reinforced Concrete Pipe Ext.
Box Culvert Extension
Reinforced Concrete Pipe Ext.
Reinforced Concrete Pipe Ext.
Box Culvert Extension
Corregated Metal Pipe
Box Culvert
Size of Structure 1
•
3 cell-23 feet
3 cell-60 inches
6 feet x 8 feet
2 cell-48 inches
2 cell-52 inches
6 feet x 14 feet
36 inches
5 feet x 9 feet
3 cell-23 feet
3 cell-60 inches
6 feet x 8 feet
2 cell-48 inches
2 cell-52 inches
6 feet x 14 feet
36 inches
5 feet x 9 feet
3 cell-23 feet
3 cell-60 inches
6 feet x 8 feet
2 cell-48 inches
2 cell-52 inches
6 feet x 14 feet
36 inches
5 feet x 9 feet
3 cell-23 feet
3 cell-60 inches
6 feet x 8 feet
2 cell-48 inches
2 cell-52 inches
6 feet x 14 feet
36 inches
5 feet x 9 feet
3 cell-23 feet
3 cell-60 inches
6 feet x 8 feet
2 cell-48 inches
2 cell-52 inches
6 feet x 14 feet
36 inches
5 feet x 9 feet
Linear Feet of
Stream Impact
======
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
60
90
60
40
55
75
50
50
480
170
80
80
80
100
115
80
S^
790
180
90
90
90
110
125
90
95
870
IV-48
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-9: Number, Probable Type, and Preliminary Size
of Stream Crossings by Alternative (continued)
1. 1 1
Alternative Stream Crossing
=======
IN - No-Build
2N - TSM
3N - 20' Median
(50 MPH)
3N - 34' Median
(50 MPH)
3N - 20' Median
(60 MPH)
3N - 34' Median
(60 MPH)
4N Modified -
20' Median
4N Modified -
134' Median
Crippen Branch
Church Branch
Middle Branch
Birch Branch
Carey Branch
Crippen Branch
Church Branch
Middle Branch
Birch Branch
Carey Branch
Crippen Branch
Church Branch
Middle Branch
Birch Branch
Carey Branch
Crippen Branch
Church Branch
Middle Branch
Birch Branch
Carey Branch
Crippen Branch
Church Branch
Middle Branch
Birch Branch
Carey Branch
Crippen Branch
Church Branch
Middle Branch
Birch Branch
Carey Branch
Church Branch
Middle Branch
Birch Branch
Carey Branch
Church Branch
Middle Branch
Birch Branch
Carey Branch
Type and Length
of Crossing
Corregated Metal Pipe
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Corregated Metal Pipe
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Corregated Metal Pipe
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Corregated Metal Pipe
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Corregated Metal Pipe
Ext.
Box Culvert Extension
Box Culvert Extension
Box Culvert Extension
Box Culvert Extension
Corregated Metal Pipe
Ext.
Box Culvert Extension
Box Culvert Extension
Box Culvert Extension
Box Culvert Extension
New Box Culvert
New Box Culvert
Box Culvert Extension
Box Culvert Extension
New Box Culvert
New Box Culvert
Box Culvert Extension
Box Culvert Extension
Size of Structure
2 cell-36 inches
8 Vt feet x 15 feet
7 Vz feet x 9 feet
7 feet x 16 feet
6 feet x 1 1 feet
2 cell-36 inches
8 Vifeetx 15 feet
7 l/2 feet x 9 feet
7 feet x 16 feet
6 feet x 1 1 feet
2 cell-36 inches
8 Vz feetx 15 feet
7 l/2 feet x 9 feet
7 feet x 16 feet
6 feet x 1 1 feet
2 cell-36 inches
8 Vz feetx 15 feet
7 Vz feet x 9 feet
7 feetx 16 feet
6 feet x 1 1 feet
2 cell-36 inches
8 Vz feet x 15 feet
7 ft feet x 9 feet
7 feetx 16 feet
6 feet x 1 1 feet
2 cell-36 inches
8 »/z feet x 15 feet
7 ft feet x 9 feet
7 feetx 16 feet
6 feet x 1 1 feet
8 Vz feetx 15 feet
7 ft feet x 9 feet
7 feetx 16 feet
6 feet x 1 1 feet
8 Vz feetx 15 feet
7 ft feet x 9 feet
7 feetx 16 feet
6 feet x 1 1 feet
Linear Feet of
Stream Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
85
120
350
140
80
775
95
130
380
150
90
845
105
140
415
160
JJ5
935
115
160
430
170
130
1005
270
500
160
ill
1045
285
520
170
130
1,105
IV-49
-------
Table IV-9: Number, Probable Type, and Preliminary Size
of Stream Crossings by Alternative (continued)
Type and Length
of Crossin
3N/4N Modified •
20' Median
3N/4N Modified -
34' Median
Church Branch
Middle Branch
Birch Branch
Carey Branch
Church Branch
Middle Branch
Birch Branch
Carey Branch
New Box Culvert
New Box Culvert
Box Culvert Extension
Box Culvert Extension
New Box Culvert
New Box Culvert
Box Culvert Extension
Box Culvert Extension
8 V4 feet x 15 feet
7 Vi feet x 9 feet
7 feet x 16 feet
6 feet x 11 feet
S'/ifeetx 15 feet
7 'A feet x 9 feet
7 feet x 16 feet
6 feet x 11 feet
270
500
160
ill
1045
285
520
170
12Q
1,105
depth and channel formation.
Broader shallower streams promote warming of the stream and a decrease in dissolved oxygen. An
are processed through the aquatic ecosystem.
n,,rin* final design consideration will be given to maintaining the geomorphic stability of the
^^
animal usage, and maintaining the active floodplain of the streams crossed.
throughout all phases of this project.
The restoration of streams within the study area to compensate for stream loss will be considered
luring S design. Until detailed hydrologic data is available it is not possible to identify
appropriate restoration methods.
IV-50
-------
US 113 Planning Study
The Pocomoke River, a Maryland wild and scenic river, is located at least 2,500 feet to the west of
US 113. Because the river flows roughly parallel to the roadway, US 113 does not cross it. No
impacts to the wild and scenic resource are expected.
Adverse impacts to water quality during construction of the roadway or borrow pits will be mitigated
through strict adherence to the SHA erosion and sediment control procedures. All borrow material
will be obtained from clean upland sites. All areas of exposed soil will be vegetatively or
structurally stabilized as soon as practical. An SHA approved stormwater management plan will also
be required for this project. The stormwater management plan will include both quantity and quality
management for stormwater runoff prior to discharge into receiving waters.
Stormwater management facilities can cause several negative environmental impacts including:
increasing downstream water temperatures, reducing downstream dissolved oxygen level during dry
weather discharge, sacrifice of upstream channels, provide a barrier to the downstream movement
of bedload, provide a barrier to fish movement, and the disturbance of wetlands (Schuler and Galli,
1991). These negative impacts will be minimized by the careful placement of these facilities outside
stream channels and wetlands.
Other measures to minimize construction related impacts include:
• Initiating temporary stream closures where necessary.
• Minimizing equipment operation within the stream channels.
Constructing temporary in-stream measures (Coffer dams, stream crossings) with
• clean materials.
Locating equipment fueling and service staging areas away from aquatic resources.
Constructing culvert extensions or new structures at stream crossings in such a
manner as to promote continued easy fish migration and/or avoid any additional
impact within stream channels.
All waters of the United States including Jurisdictional Wetlands are regulated under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA). These areas also regulated by the State of Maryland through its
wetlands and waterways statutes. Project activities impacting Jurisdictional waters and wetlands will
require authorization from the Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Department of the Environment.
H. Floodplains
The No-Build and TSM Alternatives will not cause additional impacts to any 100-year floodplains.
Each of the Build Alternatives will traverse the 100 year floodplains associated with major stream
systems in the study areas which include Purnell Branch, Poorhouse Branch, Five Mile Branch,
Massey Branch, Porter Branch, Goody Hill Branch, and Poplartown Branch in the southern study
area and Crippen Branch, Church Branch, Middle Branch, Birch Branch and Carey Branch on the
northern study area. Table IV-10 shows the area of impact to these 100-year floodplains by each
alternative.
IV-51
-------
Table IV-10: Impacts to the 100-Year Floodplain
Proposed Floodplain Impact (acres
IS-No-Build
.•™—i^^-^—
2S-TSM
2S - 20' Median
_—^—.^————
3S - 20' Median
3S - 34' Median
_.
IN-No-Build
—————
2N - TSM
^_— -"
3N - 20' Median / 50 MPH
_ • •
3N - 34' Median / 50 MPH
__ — •
3N - 20' Median / 60 MPH
__— '
3N - 34' Median / 60 MPH
•
4N Modified - 20' Median
. •—•
4N Modified - 34' Median
. •
3N/4N Modified - 20' Median
_ •
3N/4N Modified - 34' Median
These estimates are based on preliminary structure sizes
during the design phase of the project.
. Final determination of si.es win be made
following:
^ potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facilitywhich
for emergency vehicles or provides a community's only evacuation routes,
a significant risk, or
a significant adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values.
IV-52
-------
US 113 Planning Study
The use of standard hydraulic design techniques for all waterway openings which limit upstream
flood level increases and approximate existing downstream flow rates will be utilized where feasible.
Use of state-of-the-art sediment and erosion control techniques and stormwater management controls
will ensure that none of the encroachments would result in risks or impacts to the beneficial
floodplain values or provide direct or indirect support to further development within the floodplain.
Preliminary analyses indicate that no significant floodplain impacts are expected to occur as a result
of any proposed Build Alternatives. A floodplain finding, if required, will be presented in the final
environmental document.
All of the proposed culverts, culvert extensions or other structures at stream crossings will pass the
100-year flood flow without flooding of the roadway. Sections of roadway which may traverse a
floodplain shall be located above the 100-year flood level for protection from flood damage. At the
final design phase of the project, the plans will be reviewed by federal, state and local agencies to
ensure that the design complies with state and local floodplains regulations.
Proposed floodplain encroachments must be in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order
11988. Crossings of the 100-year floodplain will be sized to safely convey the 100-year flood flow
without overtopping the roadway or causing adverse impacts downstream.
I.
Wetlands
Wetland identification methodology is described in Chapter ffl, Section H. A functional assessment
of the wetlands has been conducted using the New England Corps Descriptive Approach. The
findings of this assessment are presented in Chapter HI, Section H, and are included in the wetland
summary table, Table IE-15.
Potential impacts to waters of the United States, including Jurisdictional wetlands and streams were
determined based on right-of-way limits for each of the alternatives. This represents the "worst case"
for the impacts and actual wetland impacts based on construction slope limits should be less.
Impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands within the study area are unavoidable for
any of the Build Alternatives. The placement of fill within some wetlands and the construction of
stream crossings on others will cause the loss of wetland acreage which, in turn, may also impair one
or more of the wetland functions detailed in Chapter ffl. Wetland values and functions may be
further impaired by any impacts to surface water quality caused by the construction or operation of
US 113 (Surface Water Resources, Section IV-G). Alternative alignments, slope limits, right-of-
way, and wetlands locations are shown in Appendix A. The acreage of encroachment for each
wetland within the dualization alternatives are included in Table IV-11. Total acreage of
encroachment for each wetland class are included in Table IV-12.
IV-53
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-ll: Impacts To Wetlands Within The Study Area By Each Build Alternative'
Southern Study Area
Wetland
Number1
i— ^^E?T
W-l
W-2
W-3
W-4
W-5
W-5A
W-6
W-7
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
W-12
W-13
1 V/-14
W-15
W-16
W-17
W-18
W-19
W-20
W-21
| W-22
i TOTAL
Wetland
Classification3
—
PEM
PFO
PFO
PFO
PEM/PSS
PEM/PSS
PFO
PFO
PFO
PSS/R2
PFO
PFO/R2
PFO
PFO
PFO
PFO
PFO
PFO
PFO
PFO
PFO
PFO/R2
PFO
—————
i ^^=^^=^=
1.
2.
3.
__— — — — — — ^
Stream
========
Hardship Branch
Patty's Branch
Patty's Branch
Patty's Branch
Patty's Branch
Patty's Branch
Patty's Branch
Patty's Branch
Pumell Branch
Poorhouse Branch
Five Mile Branch
Massey Branch
Massey Branch
Porter Creek
Bassett Creek
Bassett Creek
Bassett Creek
Bassett Creek
Catbird Creek
Poplartown Branch
Poplartown Branch
Poplartown Branch
Poplartown Branch
Total
Wetland
Area4
(Acres)
Impacted Area (acres)
Alternatives
2S - 20'
Median
*
100 <0.1
>500 1.1
200 1 <0.1
2.0
1 1.0
2.0
>500
>500
>500
200
>500
100
>500
100
100
5.0
200
0.8
100
1.0
ct\
50
200
200
"
"
0.6
0.8
<0.1
<0.1
1.7
0.3
""
"
0.2
<0. 1
0.7
*•""
0.2
1 5.8
'
3S-201
Median
,
0.2
1.1
_'
0.4
0 5
\J.~J
0.8
1.4
01
. i
n i
U. 1
3.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0 4
V.^
1 9
1 .£•
0.3
—i "'—
11.8
3S - 34'
Median
_
0.3
1.3
..
0.5
0.6
0.9
1.6
0.1
0.1
4.0
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
1.3
_„
0.4
.
13.6
!.
Siream (walers of the US) impact. are discussed in Seclion IV-G and in Table IV-2.
:™s
d NW, ,
To,.,
Apparent errors due to rounding.
-------
US 113 Planning Study
1 NorthernStudy Area
1
.
Alternatives
3N/4N Modified
-34' Median
I||
13 •-
z s u
*1S
Z S o =5
•* T3CS 0
o 2
ffi
^ ^ so
^ i i
o ca-
ts .2 fl-
• "05
u ^
m ^ v-j
algl
1
co
lsr=
J2 « o
33'i
£u u
•aT_
g£
11
-^ oooovoooo ,00-3-r- , >n
_• ! i o' — cs ' ' ' ' O o" O ' cs
— ' ' O— CSOOO ' ' ' 'O'O'O ' C3
O\ OOOOVOOOO OOO.T^1
_: i ! o" — cs — — — ' ' ' ' ci cs ' — o
QS \o so m O^ C7^ OO f"- OO fn ^
_; 1 ! o — cs o cj o ' • ' 'oo ' — o
rf — ^f — >n ooo , oo^r-,>n
OPO 'O— ' — — ' ' ' 'OO'o" 'C5
•» ~ *t — m vooo r~ cs t— , Tf
O O o ' O" — ' — O ' ' ' ' O C> C3 ' O
-~ ™~ r»-> — so ^ r^ v> "-• r^ cs
OOO'OO'OO'1 ' ' 'OOO'CJ
— ~ f> . — 1~: , "">. °°. . , , i ^ M. •*: i ""1
C3 *™' CD ' CD C5 ' CD C^ t i i i C3 O* CJi> ' CD
— cscs 'JJ1^1^
1 Iflll-g-g-g-gll-g-s-s-g
|B«i5«1111l'lf aall Illl
u SSSSiffloQCOCQ£<£uuuu
0. 0. OL.
2
2
oo
TT
in
r~
vO
SO
s
3
i
iscusscd in Section IV-G and in Table 1V-2.
'BIS.
Forested Wetland
Scrub/Shrub Wetland
Emergent Wetland
Stream
area is estimated from Soil Survey and NWI information.
waters of the US) impacts are d
vetlands to be verified for the F
PFO - Palustrine
PSS - Palustrine
PEM - Palustrine
R2 • Perennial
tland area outside of the study
t errors due to rounding.
*"" 5 c
g § g, 20.
is co u _o_2-
co U.-J H<
— CS r
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-12: Impacts To Wetlands By Alternative By Wetland Classification
Alternative
IS -No-Build
2S - TSM
2S - 20' Median
3S - 20' Median
3S - 34' Median
IN -No-Build
2N - TSM
3N - 20' Median / 50 MPH
3N - 34' Median / 50 MPH
3N- 20' Median 760 MPH
3N - 34' Median 7 60 MPH
4N Modified - 20' Median
4N Modified - 34' Median
3N/4N Modified - 20' Median
3N/4N Modified - 34' Median
==============================:
1 Approximate impact to k
Apparent errors due to ro
Wetland Classification
Palustrine
Forested
0.0
0.0
5.8
11.3
13.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
2.8
5.1
6.0
21.1
23.3
9.2
10.2
================
irmed wetlands to be v
unding.
Palustrine
Scrub/Shrub
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
=====
srified and surveyed fo
Palustrine
Emergent
0.0
0.0
<0.1
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.1
1.3
1.8
2.0
=======
r the FEIS.
Farmed
Wetlands1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
0.4
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.2
1 -^
IV-56
-------
US 113 Planning Study
In addition to direct impacts to wetlands caused by earthwork and highway structures, post-
construction impacts to wetland values and functions may also be realized. These may include such
impacts as: the loss of wetland flora, fauna and habitat due to sediment and pollutant deposition or
hydrologic changes; the interruption of reproductive cycles by highway related noise; and the
interruption of migration into and out of wetland areas by highway traffic or structural barriers
(Erickson, et al., 1980).
Existing functions for each wetland within a Build Alternative right-of-way were determined using
New England Corps of Engineers Descriptive method. The definition and assessment criteria that
were used during the field review of wetland functions is provided in Chapter HI, Section H.3. The
results of the wetland function assessment are summarized in Table 01-16.
In general, most of the existing functions will continue to be provided by remaining portions of the
wetlands although the quantity or magnitude of these functions would be reduced proportionally with
the area lost. For some wetlands, the introduction of new sediment/toxicant sources; the introduction
or loss of inlets, outlets or construction; the change in the input area; etc, will impact the wetland's
effectiveness and/or opportunity to perform some or all functions. The wetland functions most
impacted or limited by the Build Alternative include: sediment/toxicant retention, flood flow
alteration, wildlife habitat and nutrient removal/ transformation.
Some encroachment into wetlands within the corridor was avoided during preliminary design.
Where possible, alternatives were located to avoid wetland resources. Avoidance of the riverine
wetlands that are nearly perpendicular to the alternative alignments was not achievable in several
instances. Unavoidable impacts to all wetlands will be minimized by circumventing resources to
the extent possible; maximizing slopes, thereby reducing fill; and using culverts and bridges to
maintain existing stream channels and hydrologic connections.
Specific wetlands impacted by the Build Alternatives are detailed below. Avoidance or further
minimization of impacts to these wetlands would cause additional displacements, alignment
difficulties or additional wetlands impacts. The following provides the analysis of avoidance
alternatives, in accordance with the Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines, for each of the dualization
alternatives.
+ Southern Study Area
Wetland 1 is located on both sides of existing US 113, north of Castle Hill Road; shifting
the dualization to the east would reduce the wetland impact to W-l, but would require
approximately 1,500 feet of additional road reconstruction. To minimize the proposed
impacts, 2:1 outside slopes and guardrail have been used to reduce the roadway footprint.
Wetland 2 is located on both sides of existing US 113, south of Snow Hill Road; shifting the
dualization to the east would cause additional impacts to W-2. To minimize the proposed
impacts, 2:1 outside slopes and guardrail have been used to reduce the roadway footprint.
IV-57
-------
Wetland 3 is located on both sides of existing US 113, just south of Snow Hill Road;
shifting the dualization to the east would impact approximately the same acreage of wetland
of W-3 and increase the impact to W-2.
Wetland 4 is located to the east of US 113, south of Brick Kiln Road, and is not impacted
by this alternative.
Wetland 5 is located to the west of US 113, north of Washington Street; shifting the
dualization to the east would require approximately 2,000 feet of additional^road
reconstruction and cause an impact to a currently unimpacted farmed wetland and also
increase impacts to W-7.
Wetland 5A is located to the west of US 113, south of Public Landing Road. Shifting the
dualization to the east would require approximately 2,400 feet of additional roadway
construction. Although this shift would reduce the impacts to W-5, W-6 and avoid W-5A,
it would cause an impact to a currently unimpacted fanned wetland and the unimpacted W-7.
To minimize the proposed impacts to Wetland 5 and 5 A, 2:1 outside slopes and guardrail
have been used to reduce the roadway footprint.
Wetland 6 is located to the west of US 113, north of Public Landing Road. Shifting the
alignment to the east would require approximately 2,000 ^4f 7 t^WSA*
construction. Although this shift could reduce the impacts to W-5, W-6 and avoid W-5 A.
it would cause an impact to a currently unimpacted farmed wetland and the unimpacted W-7^
Impacts to Wetland 6 are further minimized through the use of 2:1 outside slopes and
guardrail to reduce the roadway footprint.
Wetland 7 is located to the east of existing US 113, north of Public Landing Road. This
wetland is not impacted by the dualization.
Wetland 8 is located along Pumell Branch on both sides of existing US 113, south of Market
Street This wetland could not be avoided, because of its size and how closely it is located
along US 113. Shifting the dualization to the east would cause even greater impacts to the
wetland. To minimize the proposed impacts, 2:1 outside slopes and guardrail have been used
to reduce the roadway footprint.
Wetland 9 is located along Poorhouse Branch on both sides of existing US 113, north of
Cedar town Road. Shifting the dualization to the east would cause greater impacts to W-9.
Wetland 10 is located along Five Mile Branch to the east of existing US 113, North of
Cedral Site Lane and is not impacted.
IV-58
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Wetland 11 is located on both sides of existing US 113. South of Langmaid Road. Shifting
the dualization to the east would cause additional impacts to W-ll. To minimize the
proposed impacts, 2:1 outside slopes and guardrail have been used to reduce the roadway
footprint.
Wetland 12 is located along Massey Branch on both sides of existing US 113, between
Langmaid and Newark Roads. This wetland could not be avoided, because of its size and
location along US 113. Shifting the dualization would decrease the wetland impacts, but
would require approximately 3,500 feet of additional roadway construction. To minimize
the proposed impacts, 2:1 outside slopes and guardrail have been used to reduce the roadway
footprint.
Wetland 13 is located along Porter Creek on both sides of existing US 113, north of Newark
Road. Shifting the dualization to the west could reduce the wetland impact, but would
require approximately 3,000 feet of additional roadway construction and impact the currently
unimpacted W-13A. To minimize the proposed impacts to W-13, 2:1 outside slopes and
guardrail have been used to reduce the roadway footprint.
Wetlands 13A and 14 are located to the west and east respectively of existing US 113,
between Newark and Goody Hill Roads. These wetlands are not affected by the dualization.
Wetlands 15 and 17 are located to the west, with Wetland 16 located along Goody Hill
Branch on both sides of existing US 113, near Goody Hill Road. Shifting the alignment to
the east would avoid W-15 (a wetland of special state concern) and 17, and impact
approximately the same acreage from W-16, but the shift would require approximately 2,000
feet of roadway construction and impact a currently unimpacted farmed wetland and increase
impacts to W-18. Impacts to W-16 are further minimized through the use of 2:1 outside
slopes and guardrail to reduce the roadway footprint.
Wetland 18 is located along Catbird Creek on both sides of existing US 113, south of Bays
End Lane. This wetland could not be avoided. Shifting the dualization would increase the
impacts to W-18. Impacts to W-18 have been minimized through the use of 2:1 outside
slopes and guardrail to reduce the roadway footprint.
Wetlands 19 and 20 are located to the east of existing US 113, between Bays End Lane and
Mason Road. These wetlands are not affected by the dualization.
Wetland 21 is located along Poplartown Branch to the east of existing US 113, south of
Harrison Road, and is not impacted by the dualization.
IV-59
-------
Wetland 22 is located along Poplartown Branch to the west side existing US 1 13, south of
Hanfeon Road. Shifting the duration to the east would decrease the acreage impacted to
W^2, but would impact the currently unimpacted W-21 and require approximately 2 500
L of additional roadway construction. Impacts to W-22 have been minimized through the
use of 2:1 outside slopes and guardrail to reduce the roadway footprmt.
Northern Study Area
Wetland 23 (Alternatives 3N and 4N Modified), is located to the west of existing US 1 13,
north of Dee Park Road. Wetland 23, under Alternative 3N, could be avoided by shifting
r aliment to the east requiring approximately 600 feet of roadway oon^d^
increasing impacts to W-24 and W-25, additional residential displacements and greater loss
of farmlands.
Wetlands 23 and 26, (Alternative 4N Modified), could not be avoided, because of their sizes
and low closely they are located to Alternative 4N Modified alignments tie-m/take-off
points with existing US 1 13 roadway.
Wetlands 24 and 25 (Alternative 3N), are located to the east of existing US 113 of the
meePenny Lane intention, l^to**^***^^^^™*
impacted to W-24 and W-25, but would increase the impacts to W-23 and require
approximately 1,000 feet of additional roadway construction.
Wetland 26 (Alternative 4N Modified), could not be avoided, because of their sizes and how
closely they are located to Alternative 4N Modified alignments tie-in/take-off points with
existing US 1 13 roadway.
Wetland 27 (Alternative 4N Modified), is located 2,400 feet to the west of existing US 1 13
between Carey Road and MD Route 90. This wetland could not be avoided, because of its
size and being located so close to the existing graded MD Route 90 Interchange.
Wetlands 28, 30 and 31 (Alternatives 3N and 4N Modified) ate
Middle and Birch Branch respectively, located to both sides of existing US 1 3 and the
Modified alignment crossing between Racetrack and Jarvis Roads. These wetlands could not
be avoided by shifting the dualization or realigning the alignment, because of their length
topacts to W-28, 30, and 31 have been minimized through the use of 2:1 outside slopes and
guardrail to reduce the roadway footprint.
Wetland 29 (Alternative 4N Modified), is located 500 feet east of existing US 1 13, north of
Church Branch and on both sides of Alternative 4N Modified. Shifting the ahgnmen to (he
wS would decrease the acreage impacted to W-29, and the roadway lengths would stay
rppr^mately the same, but the shift would increase impacts to W-28 and W-30, and reqmre
additional residential displacements.
IV-60
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Wetlands 32 and 35 (Alternatives 3N and 4N Modified), are located to the east, with
Wetlands 33 and 34 (Alternatives 3N and 4N Modified), located to the west of existing US
113, between Shingle Landing and Bishopville Roads. These Wetlands are not impacted by
the dualization.
Wetland 36 (Alternatives 3N and 4N Modified), is located to the east of existing US 113,
north of Old Stage Road. Shifting the dualization to the west would reduce the impacts to
W-36, but would impact a currently unimpacted W-33 and require the taking of the C&P
Telephone building along with approximately 600 feet of additional roadway construction.
Wetland 37 (Alternatives 3N and 4N Modified) is located to the west of existing US 113,
between Bishopville and Whaleyville Roads.
Alternative 3N - Wetlands along existing US 113 could be reduced by shifting the alignment
to the east requiring approximately 1,200 feet of additional roadway construction, along with
additional residential (4) and business (3) displacements. The wetland impacts were
minimized through the use of 2:1 outside slopes and guardrail to reduce the roadway foot
print.
Alternative 4N Modified - This part of the wetland could not be avoided to the east or west,
because of its size and location. To minimize the proposed impacts, 2:1 outside slopes and
guardrail have been used to reduce the roadway footprint.
Wetland 38 (Alternatives 3N and 4N Modified), is located to the east of existing US 113,
north of the Maryland and Delaware Railroad crossing. This wetland could not be avoided.
Shifting the alignment to the west or east would reduce the acreage from W-38, but the shift
would increase the impacts to W-37, require additional residential and business
displacement, along with additional roadway construction.
Wetland 39 (Alternatives 3N and 4N Modified), is located 300 feet to the west of existing
US 113, north of Whaleyville Road. This wetland could not be avoided. Shifting the
alignment to the east would reduce the acreage to W-39, but would require additional
residential displacement and roadway construction. Impacts to W-39 are further minimized
through the use of 2:1 outside slopes and guardrail to reduce the roadway footprint.
Wetland 40 (Alternatives 3N and 4N Modified), is located along Carey Branch on both
sides of existing US 113 and south of Morris Road. This wetland could not be avoided.
Shifting the alignment to the east would increase the impacts to W-40, along with additional
residential/business displacements and roadway construction. This shift would also impact
a currently unimpacted Transpeninsular Line Marker historical property. To minimize the
proposed impacts, 2:1 outside slopes and guardrail have been used to reduce the roadway
footprint.
IV-61
-------
US 113 Planning Study
During the final design the feasibility of further wetland avoidance and minimization measures will
be evaluated. Priority will be given to maintaining the existing acreages and functions of wetlands
within the corridor. Where unavoidable impacts exist, mitigation measures will be developed.
In order to minimize impacts to existing wetlands, strict enforcement of the erosion and sediment
control measures minimize construction-related impacts. These measures include:
• The use of surface mattings.
• Temporary and permanent seeding.
• The use of channel linings and slope rock protection.
• The use of energy dissipators.
• The use of silt barrier fencing.
• The use of turbidity curtains
The increase of impervious surface area associated with the highway construction will produce
higher peak discharges and velocities. Many wetland species have specific water depth
requirements, and the potential for exceedance of those requirements is great. The biotic potential
of some wetland species may be jeopardized by increased peak discharges and velocities.
Increased velocities lead to erosion and sediment transport and the eventual formation of significant
channels and/or aggradation which would limit the areas of inundation, thus shrinking wetland areas.
Discharges and velocities will need to be controlled through the use of detention facilities that
simulate pre-development conditions. This can be achieved through the use of detention basins and
flow regulators. These water quantity measures will protect wetland areas from post development
impacts. Best management practices will be used to ensure water quality.
Mitigation for impacted wetlands will be developed in consultation with the Army Corps of
Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency and Maryland Department of the Environment.
Resource agency coordination is necessary when developing detailed mitigation measures to
compensate for the loss of wetland acreage and functions. Such measures may include the
restoration of former wetland areas, creation of new wetlands or the enhancement of degraded or
low-functioning wetlands. Generally, impacts to vegetated wetlands are mitigated for through
compensatory mitigation and impacts to non-vegetated Waters of the US will be minimized and may
be compensated for through habitat improvements.
By agreement between the Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency, the
following replacement ratios are a guideline for the mitigation of unavoidable wetland impacts.
Forested Wetlands - 2:1
• Scrub/Shrub Wetlands - 2:1
• Emergent Wetlands-1.5:1
IV-62
-------
US 113 Planning Study
These ratios are only a guideline for wetland mitigation and may be adjusted up or down as
appropriate to compensate for losses of wetland functions and values and impacts to wetlands of
. special state concern.
A search for wetland mitigation sites has been initiated to identify areas that would be potentially
suitable for wetland creation. The initial focus of the site search has been the identification of prior
converted cropland, farmed wetlands, and recently abandoned agricultural land within or adjacent
to the proposed right-of-way for US 1 13. Consultation with the Natural Resource and Conservation
Service (NRCS) in Snow Hill, and the review of infra-red aerial photographs has been completed
to identify potential wetland mitigation sites. Additional factors evaluated during the site search
include adjacent land use/land cover, soils, distance to existing streams and wetlands, proximity to
the location of proposed wetland impacts, and ownership. Seven landowners in the project vicinity
have indicated an interest in creating wetlands on their property. Additional on-site investigations
and negotiations with these landowners are planned to evaluate availability and hydrologic
characteristics of the sites.
Seventeen potential wetland mitigation sites have been identified in the study area. Each site has
been reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and Maryland Department of the Environment (see meeting minutes dated
March 20 and 28, 1997 in Chapter VI). Coordination with the agencies will continue as more
detailed studies are completed for the FEIS.
Several sites will likely be required to compensate for the proposed loss of wetland acreage and
functions. In areas that are designated as prior converted cropland, drainage ditches or tile drains
would be blocked to restore wetland hydrology. The area would then be replanted with vegetation
that is adaptable to wetland conditions and that is found in natural wetlands in the region.
Many of the natural streams in the project area have been ditched or otherwise modified for
agricultural purposes. Restoration of natural channel characteristics would be incorporated into the
wetland mitigation design where possible, by reestablishing natural fluvial geomorphology and
riparian vegetation that is characteristic of the region.
J. Vegetation and Wildlife
1. Vegetation
The No-Build (Alternatives IS and IN) and TSM (Alternatives 2S and 2N) alternatives are
not expected to cause additional impacts to natural vegetation in the study area.
Alternative 2S-201 Median and the dualize alternatives will require the clearing and grubbing
of existing vegetation and the conversion of land for transportation purposes. This will result
in the loss of agricultural, forested meadowland and residential and commercial frontage.
Some impacts to natural vegetation, crop fields and miscellaneous lawns and ornamental
-------
US 113 Planning Study
plants are expected to result from each of the 3S and 3N alternatives even as the proposed
dualization of US 113 closely parallels the existing roadway.
The 4N Modified alternatives avoid impacts to many residential and commercial properties
as the alignments diverges from the existing roadway and impacts pnmanly agncultural
fields, forested and wetland areas.
The 3N/4N Modified alternatives would impact less forested, wetland, and meadow acreage
and would impact more landscaped and turfed acreage than the 4N Modified alternatives.
A summary of the impacts on vegetation by each alternative alignment is shown in Table VI-
13.
Three specimen trees, one Southern Red Oak and two Tulip Poplars, are locatedI in the study
area. They are clustered together, located just north of Harrison Road. A specimen tree is
identified as any tree with a DBH (diameter at breast height) of 30 inches or greater. These
u?es will be impacted by the Alternative 2S-20' Median and by the 3S alternatives. Impact
^!L Southern Red oak may be avoided through the inclusion of guardrail. This will be
addressed in later stages of this project.
Impacts to forested areas will require reforestation in accordance with the re vised Maryland
Forest Conservation Act (1994). The mitigation of wetland impacts is addressed in Section
IV-I of this document. Other mitigation options such as landscaping, for the impacts to
vegetation by the build alternatives will be further defined and finalized in later stages of this
project.
IV-64
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-13: Impacts to Vegetation
Alternative
IS -No-Build
2S - TSM
2S - 20' Median
3S - 20' Median
3S - 34' Median
IN -No-Build
2N - TSM
3N - 20' Median / 50 MPH
3N- 34' Median/ 50 MPH
3N - 20' Median / 60 MPH
3N - 34' Median / 60 MPH
4N Modified - 20' Median
4N Modified - 34' Median
3N/4N Modified-20' Median
3N/4N Modified-341 Median
Agriculture
Land (ac)
0
0
20
104
115
0
0
35
39
39
44
102
102
103
103
Upland
Forest
(ac)
0
0
39
47
52
0
0
14
13
15
17
53
59
48
53
Upland
Meadow
(ac)
0
0
8
10
11
0
0
15
14
17
19
15
17
17
19
Wetland
(ac)
0
0
5.8
11.8
13.6
0
0
3.6
4.3
6.6
7.5
22.4
24.8
11.2
12.4
Landscaped
and Turfed
Areas (ac)
0
0
56
67
74
0
0
46
42
51
57
15
17
17
19
Total
(ac)
0
0
129
240
266
0
0
114
112
129
145
207
220
196
206
IV-65
-------
2. Wildlife
species would be impacted by the roadway alternatives.
The No-BuM Alternative will no, cause any additional NP«?
loss of wildlife habitat and the wildlife using that habitat.
The 4N Modified alternatives require the provision of right-of-way area >^«t« ough
in addition to the physical removal of natural vegetation.
-------
US 113 Planning Study
habitat types known as the ecotone, will be beneficial to other species such as the white-tail
deer and black rat snake (Leedy and Adams, 1997). These effects will be minimal however
because of the large, existing areas of open agricultural land and the existing ecotones
throughout the study areas.
The wildlife species found within the vicinity of the alignments along existing US 113 are
generally tolerant of man induced noise. Wildlife species found in the areas of new
alignment may be exposed to new noise elements. Noise levels may have a negative impact
on breeding birds who depend on vocal communication for attracting mates. It is expected
that additional pollutants carried into adjacent water resources by surface runoff could result
in some water quality degradation, thereby affecting biota within the receiving water
resources, however, as shown in Section IV-G these effects are expected to be minimal.
Minor additional air pollution is not expected to have an adverse affect on wildlife as it will
be readily dispersed by wind.
The associated loss of wildlife caused by alternatives may be mitigated by the enhancement
of the wildlife habitat through reforestation including vegetation with high wildlife food
value (mast producing trees, seed or berry producing shrubs, etc.), and plants which will
provide cover for wildlife.
To protect aquatic resources including anadromus fish species such as yellow perch, white
perch, alewife, and blueback herring, no iristream construction will be permitted between
February 15 and June 15.
SHA has coordinated with US Fish and Wildlife Service and with the Maryland Department
of Natural Resources to identify rare, threatened or endangered species in the study area.
3. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
There are no federally listed rare, threatened, or endangered (RTE) species known to occur
within the study area therefore no impacts will occur. Of the five state listed RTE species
recorded in the project area, two of these, the state rare seaside alder (Alnus maritima) and
the blackbanded sunfish (Enneaconthus chactadori) which is in need of conservation, are
potentially impacted by the dualization alternatives. The presence of several seaside alders
within the southern study area was verified during field surveys in July 1996. Although the
presence of the blackbanded sunfish was not confirmed during this study, it has been
identified during previous surveys of Carey Branch in the northern study area.
The No-Build and TSM alternatives are not expected to cause any impacts to rare, threatened,
or endangered species or their habitats within the northern or southern study area.
IV-67
-------
creation/restoration areas if possible.
sediment contamination of Carey Branch.
K. Air Quality
^
for same analysis years.
in site work.
quality of the area.
IV-68
-------
US 113 Planning Study
TABLE IV-14: CO Concentrations - Southern Study Area
Receptor
1-1
1-2
1-3
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9 '
4-10
4-11
4-12
2000
No-Build
1-Hr.
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.9
2.9
3.2
3.1
3.5
3.0
3.3
2.9
3.4
3.0
2.9
3.1
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.9
3.1
3.4
2.9
3.0
3.2
2.8
2.9
2.9
8-Hr.
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
.0
.0
.1
.1
.3
.1
1.2
1.0
.2
.1
.0
.1
.0
.0
.1
.1
.0
.1
.1
.3
.0
.1
.1
.0
1.0
1.0
Build
1-Hr.
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.8
,2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.1
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.1
2.8
2.9
3.2
2.9
L 2.7
3.1
2.9
3.2
3.0
2.9
3.1
2.8
3.0
2.9
8-Hr.
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
.0
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.2
.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
.1
.1
.1
0.9
.1
.1
.1
.1
.0
.1
.0
.1
.1
2020
No-Build
1-Hr.
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.0
3.5
3.0
3.3
2.9
3.4
3.0
2.9
3.1
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.9
3.1
3.4
2.9
3.0
3.2
2.8
2.9
2.9
8-Hr.
0.9
0.9
0.9
.0
.0
.0
.1
.1
.3
.1
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.0
.1
.0
.0
.1
.1
.0
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.0
.0
.0
Build
1-Hr.
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.1
3.2
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.1
2.8
2.9
3.2
2.9
2.7
3.1
2.9
3.2
3.0
2.9
3.1
2.8
3.0
2.9
8-Hr.
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
.0
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.2
.0
.1
.1
.1
1.1
l.Q
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
.0
.1
.0
.1
.1
Notes: 1-hour average CO concentrations include a 2.6 ppm background concentration. Worse Case (a.m. or p.m.)
shown.
8-hour average CO concentrations include a 0.9 ppm background concentration.
The S/NAAQS for the 1-hour average is 35.0 ppm.
The S/NAAQS for the 8-hour average is 9.0 ppm.
IV-69
-------
US 113 Planning Study
TABLE IV-15: CO Concentrations - Northern Study Area
1-Hr. I 8-Hr. 1 1-Hr. I 8-Hr.
Notes:
—
1-hour average CO concentrations include a 2.6 ppm background concentration. Worse Case (a.m. or p.m.)
^IIQWTI
8-hour average CO concentrations include a 0.9 ppm background concentration.
The S/NAAQS for the 1-hour average is 35.0 ppm.
The S/NAAQS for the 8-hour average is 9.0 ppm
rv-70
-------
US 113 Planning Study
L. Noise Quality
1. Criteria for Determining Noise Impact
The existing noise environment of the area residential receptors involved in this study
reflects a base of steady "background" noise, which is the sum of many distant noise sources.
Super-imposed on this background noise is the noise from traffic on US 113.
To describe noise environments, and to assess impact on noise sensitive areas, a frequency
weighing measure which simulates the human perceptions is customarily selected. A-
weighted ratings of noise sources, which reflect the human ear's reduced sensitivity to low
frequencies, have been found to correlate well with human perceptions of the annoying
aspects of noise, particularly from traffic noise sources. Consequently A-weighted noise
levels, described in decibels-A or dBA, are the values cited by Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) in its noise criteria. Noise levels can often be predicted by knowing
the general characteristics of the source and its surroundings.
One area of environmental acoustics that has received considerable attention is the
development of methods to describe the impact of highway noise on the community.
Attempts to correlate noise environments with community annoyance have led to the
development of several single-number noise descriptions for the assessment of community
reaction. To accurately reflect peoples' reactions to noise, a descriptor should describe the
fluctuating noise levels completely by including intensity and frequency characteristics along
with the variation of both over time. Furthermore, it should describe, in a single number, the
known effects of noise on humans. A descriptor that satisfies these requirements is the
Equivalent Noise Level, Leq, which is the constant noise level that contains the same amount
of acoustical energy as the actual fluctuating level of interest over the same period of time.
The FHWA has designated the hourly Equivalent Noise level value, Leq(h), in its noise
criteria.
Criteria adopted by the Maryland SHA for the determination of an impacted receptor have
been implemented throughout the analysis for this project and are summarized as follows:
According to the procedures described in FHWA Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part
772, noise impacts occur when predicted noise levels for the design year (2020) approach or
exceed the noise abatement criterion for a particular land use category, or when predicted
noise levels are substantially higher than existing ambient noise levels. The Maryland State
Highway Administration and FHWA defines "approach" as 66 dBA or above, and uses a 10
dBA increase to define a substantial increase. Under SHA's current noise policy, once an
impact has been identified, the following factors are evaluated to determine whether
mitigation is feasible and reasonable:
IV-71
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Feasibility
Can noise levels be reduced by at least 3 decibels at impacted receptors? The noise
reduction goal for receptors with the highest noise levels (first right-of-way receivers)
is 7-10 decibels.
Will the placement of a noise barrier restrict pedestrian or vehicular access or cause
a safety problem, such as limiting sight distance or reduction of a vehicle recovery
area?
Will the construction of a noise barrier result in utility impacts?
Will the construction of a noise barrier have an impact upon existing drainage?
Will an impact occur to a Section 4(f) resource? Section 4(f) resources include
publicly owned recreation areas and parks, wildlife areas, conservation areas and
historic sites that are either on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Are there other non-highway noise sources in the area that would reduce the
effectiveness of a noise barrier?
Reasonableness
Acceptability of proposed abatement. SHA requires that 75% of impacted and
benefited residents approve of the proposed abatement.
Comparison of no-build to build noise levels. Noise abatement is considered
reasonable if a 3 decibel or greater change in design year build noise levels over
design year no-build levels will result from the proposed highway improvements.
The cumulative effects of the highway improvements made after the construction of
the original highway will also be considered.
If noise levels equal or exceed 72 decibels at impacted receptors, SHA will consider
noise abatement reasonable for any proposed improvements that will increase the
noise levels.
Is the cost of abatement reasonable? SHA defines reasonable cost as a maximum of
$50,000 per residence. SHA feels it is reasonable to include in the cost calculation
all impacted receivers that would receive a 3 decibel or greater reduction from a
barrier. SHA will consider all receptors that will not experience noise levels equal
to or greater than 66 decibels or an increase of 10 decibels over ambient levels as
benefited by a noise barrier if they receive a 5 decibel or greater reduction from a
noise barrier.
IV-72
-------
US 113 Planning Study
The most recent five years of bidding experience will be used to calculate the square
foot factor used to estimate noise barrier cost. Currently, SHA is using a cost of
$178.03 per square meter ($16.54 per square foot). This cost figure is based upon
current costs of panels, footings, and installation.
• Will the noise barriers have a significant negative visual impact at impacted
receptors?
• Are there any special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at the
receptors that should be evaluated?
2. Predicted Noise Levels
Analysis Procedures
This analyses was conducted in accordance with standard Federal Highway Administration
guidelines and current State Highway Administration procedures and policies. The analysis
began with the determination of existing noise levels along US 113 by measuring ambient
noise levels at 65 receptor sites. Existing noise levels were recorded using a Metrosonic db-
308 Sound Analyzer for a 15-minute period. An acoustic analysis was performed utilizing
the STAMINA 2.0 traffic noise prediction model. The computer model incorporates the
following:
• Traffic characteristics (volume, speed, percentage of heavy and medium trucks)
• Topography (distance, elevation, vegetation, barriers)
• Roadway characteristics (distance and elevation)
• Sensitive receptors (distance and elevation)
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was established based upon proposed roadway
improvements and projected future traffic conditions which included prediction points along
the existing roadway, and the aforementioned field receptors. The predicted increase in noise
levels was computed by subtracting the predicted noise levels from the existing noise levels.
Additionally, a future No-Build scenario was modeled. The No-Build model is based upon
the existing roadway conditions and projected future traffic conditions. This allows
comparison of the future noise levels between the No-Build and build alternatives. The SHA
criteria for determining an impacted receiver can be applied.
Traffic Data
Traffic data were recorded in 15 minute samples during monitoring at several ambient
receptor sites and then converted to hourly volumes. The traffic samples were utilized in
calibrating the STAMINA 2.0 models. Samples were recorded for autos, medium trucks and
IV-73
-------
US 113 Planning Study
heavy trucks and their associated speeds noted. Medium trucks are defined as two axle
trucks and heavy trucks as three or more axles. Future traffic volumes for the No-Build and
Build conditions, including truck percentages and directional split, were predicted by the
SHA Travel Forecasting Section.
Under some conditions, future traffic volumes were predicted which are worse than Level
of Service (LOS) 'C'. Volumes were analyzed using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
procedures. Maximum noise levels due to roadway traffic occur when a roadway operates
at LOS 'C'. Therefore, for these areas, the roadway volume which produces LOS 'C' was
defined and utilized in the noise model. For conditions where the roadway operates at a level
better than LOS 'C', the predicted actual traffic volumes were used in the noise model.
Predicted Results
Table IV-16 presents the predicted noise levels for the design year No-Build alternative.
Y
IV-74
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-16: Summary of Noise Levels
Receptor
Number
1-1
1-2
1-3
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
Ambient Noise Level
(clBA)
65
57
59
58
60
58
63
64
67
63
66
65
71
62
58
56
61
63
58
64
64
60
61
58
Design Year 2020 Noise Levels
(dBA)
(No- Build)
53
52
58
58
63
60
64
64
67
61
62
69
67
61
63
58
58
59
57
63
55
61
61
60
Shaded area indicates a noise level which approaches or exceeds the FHWA Design Noise Level
of 67 dBA.
IV-75
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-16: Summary of Noise Levels, continued
Receptor
Number
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-9
6-10
6-11
6-12
6-13
6-14
6-15
6-16
6-17
6-18
QJ™
of 6
Ambient Noise Level ....
• _.-•_. (dBA) \,.::^';^ v\ ? - ':;; .•'.,
60
63
64
58
63
65
63
69
69
64
63
72
60
58
67
60
52
68
54
65
66
65
65
65
65
Design Year 2020 Noise Levels
(dBA)
(No- Build)
63
63
66
56
61
61
61
68
70
63
69
70
53
44
60
56
59
62
54
62
65
70
65
58
50
ded area indicates a noise level which approaches or exceeds the FHWA Design Noise Level
7dBA.
IV-76
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-16: Summary of Noise Levels, continued
Receptor
Number
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
7-7
7-9
7-10
7-11
7-12
7-13
7-14
7-15
7-16
Ambient Noise Level
(dBA)
73
55
59
60
68
56
53
61
69
70
69
70
72
62
65
Design Year 2020 Noise Levels
(dBA)
(No-Build)
72
54
50
61
68
54
50
62
67
67
64
66
68
60
62
Shaded area indicates a noise level which approaches or exceeds the FHWA Design Noise Level
of 67 dBA.
IV-77
-------
The noise sensitive receptors analyzed for the study area are adjacent to US i 1 13. or lie
the sections of Alternatives 4N Modified -34' Median on new alignment. US 1 1 3
which has not been modified from its ongmal condition
within the study area.
published as a technical memorandum to this DEIS.
Thirty of the receptor locations analyzed are in the southern study area. Two of the 30 sites
have ambient noise levels in excess of 67 dBA, four sites would approach or exceed 67 dBA
fo ^No-Build condition in the design year (2020) and five sites would be impacted by
noise levels which approach or exceed 67 dBA for the 3N alternatives.
Thirtv-four of the receptor locations analyzed are in the northern study area. Eleven of the
^^^kat'notae levels which approach or exceed 67 dB * .and 12 sites wou d
approach or exceed 67 dBA for the No-Build alternative in the DeJ^™V™^™*™
sites have projected (2020) noise levels which approach or exceed 67 dBA for Alternative
3N six sites have projected noise levels which approach or exceed the design noise level
cSe^ for AlternatFve 4N Modified -34' Median, and ten sites would be considered impacted
by the Combination Alternative.
Tables IV-17 and IV-18 present a summary of the noise levels under No-Build conditions
lompL™ to noTse levels under the dualize <^^^™*™9^™^
a summary of noise levels for the dualize alternatives compared to the baseline ambient noise
level.
IV-78
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-17: Summary of Noise Levels No-Build Versus Dualization Alternatives • Southern Study Area
Receptor
1-1
1-2
1-3
2-1 •
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
Ambient Noise
Level (dBA)
65
56
59
58
60
58
63
64
67
63
66
65
71
62
58
57
61
63
58
64
64
60
61
58
60
63
64
58
63
65
Future Year 2020 Noise Levels (dBA)
No-Build Alt IS
53
52
58
58
63
60
64
64
67
61
62
69
67
61
63
58
58
59
57
63
55
61
61
60
63
63
66
56
61
61
3S-34' Median
52
53
59
59
64
64
64
65
67
65
63
70
67
65
65
60
61
62
60
65
56
64
61
61
67
64
66
58
65
65
Difference (IS vs 3S-34'Median)
-1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+4
0
+1
0
+4
+1
+1
0
44
+2
+2
+2
+3
+3
+2
+1
+3
0
+1
44
4-1
0
4-2
44
44
Shaded area indicates a receptor meets SHA impact criteria.
Bold indicates a receptor approached or exceeds the FHWA design noise level.
IV-79
-------
-------
X— V
•8
9
"S
O
<
«*
g
35
e
u
u
j-
"
O
1
I
^tf
a
u
5
<
g
o
•s
S3
_N
1
O
i
12
i)
>
2
'3
ea
i
o
2
VI
*aS
>
u
S
"S
<•.
9
fr
1
a
WJ
90
iM
>
£
2
S
CO
J3
Si
*o
2* (^N
0 <
11
e3
«
>*
1
3
W •••
Q(=
I
3 '1
.S C
IS t.
£ i±
rj
£ *o
02 ^
S ^
o
2
2 •
rf?
•S 2
3 — •
ffl -s
2 ""*"
J .8 f> 3
"S O qj CQ
C )ZJ *J "^
,
I- ' " •
§
tv
•^~
V^
CN
~
?;
c^
1
s
VO
S
r-
vo
oo
O
if
oo
0
00
+
$
oc
!8
00
vi
cs
oo
^*
^
1
oo
vO
+
X
0
s
0\
3
OO
I
Tj-
vO
oo
s
fc^
1
VO
f2
P
t
—
^O
[*«*
+
S
f*")
+
5?
rj-
V
t>-
t~-
\f
p*.
+
K
*^J-
+
%
O
>n
o\
en
vO
vc
+
ve
l/-^
+
vg
5
o
t-1-
^
t*»
n-
+
S
CO
+
'
p
oe
s
r--
"+
ON
vO
+
o
VO
*o
+
%
%
s
vO
IT)
ID
I/*
VO
+
VO
V)
+
V
O
55
ri
*+
ID
VO
^>
+
VO
fl
+
S
s
VO
CJ\
+
^^
f^
m
"T
?;
^4>
+
r-
£
S
o
r~-
CN
^
v£
CO
T
V)
cs
+
s
£
s
1
r-
oo
^
r*-
VO
1
00
oo
+
rj
S
S
cs
^1
o
.^1
1
vO
^
+
0
VO
s
en
r1-
^
^
en
+
?
cs
r~
3
S
^
JI
vO
^
V£
f^
+
5
vO
Vg
O
CS
vO
ID
[I
so
SC
I^J
+
s
^
+
VO
VO
2
52
VO
t
r-
13
>
1
'3
e
^
.2?
"^5
O
•o
. ^rf«
'S fe
3 ^r<
o ^
— o
O *""
O. K
o
S X
« 0
o o
s -g
2 §
CL o«
ft> Q.
i 2
U) O.
2 8
03 u
U t.
•Q C3
C CA
l|
•o =
o ••"
tS -rr
-C O
oo CQ
OC
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-19: Summary of Noise Levels Ambient Versus Dualization Alternatives - Southern Study Area
Receptor
4-12
Ambient Noise
Level (dBA)
65
j Year 2020 Noise Levels (dBA)
No-Build Alt. IS
61
Alternative 3S
Difference (Ambient vs 3S
:
65
Shaded area indicates a receptor meets SHA impact criteria.
Bold indicates a receptor approached or exceeds the FHWA design noise level.
IV-82
1-1
1-2
1-3
2-1
2-2
2-3
7.5
2-6
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
rtr~
Kr~
H^—
1 3-9
1 4-1
I 4-2
i 4-3
1 4-4
I 4.5
11 4-6
II 4-7
1 4-8
I 4-9
1 4-10
|] 4.11
65
56
59
58
60
58
63
64
67
63
66
65
71
62
58
57
61
63
58
64
64
60
61
58
60
63
64
58
63
53
52
58
58
63
60
64
64
67
61
62
69
67
61
63
58
58
59
57
63
55
61
61
60
63
63
66
56
61
52
53
59
59
64
64
64
65
67
65
63
70
67
65
65
60
61
62
60
65
56
64
61
61
67
64
66
58
65
-13
-3
0
+1
+4
+6
+1
+1
0
+2
-3
+5
-4
+3
+7
+3
0
-1
+2
+ 1
-8
+4
0
+3
+7
+1
+2
0
.
+2
n
-------
2
i.
f
s
35
£
«
w
h>
A
z
1
1
"3
•*•*
<
c
•a
_N
^
&
V*
i
>
c
15
i
^
•3
s
^^
V
.2
e
Z
Cu
O
es
E
S
S
cc
^•^
M
.2
2
09
S
J£
u
>
J3
*Q
0
I
S3
u
>-
3
o Z -a
O C«"> t>
C »! ^
IS 1 -l
*
s
2
1
t
1
1
1
eg
m
3
3
,
<
,
oo
p
s
s
2
r
t
,
—
P
*
R-
2
i
i
,
-*t
IO
Jo
s
VO
CM
VO
CS
vO
'
,
5
OO
oo
,
•
,
T
s
s
vS
vO
i
i
i
i
«?
OO
vO
8
o
t
1
,
+
Ov
?!
CS
vO
i
t
i
i
"?
S
cs
vO
S
CS
1
VO
,
r
i
i
CS
vO
Tf
v>
3
VO
i
w-i
VO
OX
i
CS
vO
S
in
VO
3
—
S
—
^
i
vO
vO
ve
vO
—
S
• o
s
o
V}
VO
*
VO
VO
VO
1
u
.-•
§
c
oo
'in
O
•o
i'^
-s£
_ u
H
u
I X
r/5 °
GO 0
||
ll
JS CX
* C3
*" — .
2-5
II
« 2
CA °-
to u
led area indi
1 indicates a
JS O
vi oa
°c
-------
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Impact Assessment and Feasibility of Noise Control
Receptor 2-6 represents three homes on the east side of US 113 near the residence of 6224
Worcester Highway across from Potters Crossing Road. Projected (2020) noise levels of 67
dBA for Alternative 3S-34' Median meet the design noise level criteria, however, the
receptor does not meet the reasonableness criteria of 3 dBA for the Build versus No-Build
condition to warrant consideration of noise abatement. In addition, construction of a barrier
is not feasible because driveway openings are required to provide access to the residences,
resulting in a potentially unsafe condition, as well as, a degradation in the barrier
effectiveness. To achieve a noticeable reduction in noise levels, 5 dBA or more, a noise
barrier system must be continuous. A break in the barrier system to allow access to the
property would degrade the barrier's effectiveness (see Table IV-21A).
Receptor 3-3, representing one home on the east side of US 113 south of Basket Switch
Road, receives projected (2020) noise levels for Alternative 3S-34' Median of 70 dBA which
exceeds the design noise level of 67 dBA for the build alternative. The receptor site does
not meet the reasonableness criteria, as the increase in Build noise level is less than 3 dBA
over the No-Build condition to warrant consideration of noise abatement. Additionally,
mitigation is not feasible because driveway openings are required to provide access to the
residence. To achieve a noticeable reduction in noise levels, 5 dBA or more, a noise barrier
system must be continuous. A break in the barrier system to allow access to the property
would degrade the barrier's effectiveness, thereby eliminating the barrier as a feasible
mitigating device (see Table F/-21B).
Receptor 3-4 represents five homes on the west side of US 113 south of Basket Switch
Road. Projected (2020 noise levels are 67 dBA for Alternative 3S-34' Median, however, the
receptor does not meet the reasonable criteria of 3 dBA for the Build versus No-Build
condition to warrant consideration of noise abatement. In addition, construction of a barrier
is not feasible because driveway openings are required to provide access to the residences,
resulting in a potentially unsafe condition, as well as, a degradation in the barrier
effectiveness. To achieve a noticeable reduction in noise levels, 5 dBA or more, a noise
barrier system must be continuous. A break in the barrier system to allow access to the
property would degrade the barrier's effectiveness (see Table IV-21C).
Receptor 4-7, representing one home at 7809 Worcester Highway north of Goody Hill Road,
is predicted (2020) to receive noise levels of 67 dBA for Alternative 3S-34' Median. The
noise sensitive area does meet the reasonableness criteria for a 3 dBA increase in Build
versus No-Build, however, construction of a barrier is not feasible because a driveway
opening is required to provide access to the residence, resulting in a potentially unsafe
condition, as well as, a degradation in the barrier effectiveness. To achieve a noticeable
reduction in noise levels, 5 dBA or more, a noise barrier system must be continuous. A
break in the barrier system to allow access to the property would degrade the barrier's
effectiveness (see Table F/-2ID).
IV-85
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Receptor 4-9, representing one home at 8029 Worcester Highway north of Bays End Lane,
has projected (2020) noise levels for Alternative 3S-34' Median of 66 dB A which approaches
the design noise level of 67 dB A. however, the receptor does not meet the reasonableness
criteria of 3 dB A for the Build versus No-Build condition to warrant consideration of noise
abatement. In addition, construction of a barrier is not feasible because the driveway opening
required to provide access to the residence results in an unsafe condition, as well as, a
degradation in the barrier effectiveness. To achieve a noticeable reduction in noise levels,
5 dB A or more, a noise barrier system must be continuous. A break in the banner system to
allow access to the property would degrade the barrier's effectiveness (see Table IV-21E).
Receptors 6-2 and 6-3 represent eight residences on the west side of US 113 south of
Friendship Road near 10421 and 10485 Worcester Highway. Projected (2020) noise levels
for Alternative 3N-34' Median are 69 and 71 dBA which is in excess of the noise abatement
criteria of 67 dBA. However, the receptor does not meet the reasonableness criteria of 3
dBA for the Build versus No-Build condition to warrant consideration of noise mitigation.
In addition, construction of a barrier is not feasible because the driveway openings required
to provide access to the residences results in a potentially unsafe condition, as well as, a
degradation in the barrier effectiveness. To achieve a noticeable reduction in noise levels,
5 dBA or more, a noise barrier system must be continuous. A break in the barrier system to
allow access to the property would degrade the barrier's effectiveness (see Table FV-21F).
Receptor 6-4, representing four residences on the east side of US 113 south of Friendship
Road near 10494 Worcester Highway, is predicted (2020) to receive noise levels for
Alternative 3N-34' Median of 68 dBA which is in excess of the design noise level of 67 dBA.
The noise sensitive area does meet the reasonableness criteria for a 3 dBA increase in Build
versus No-Build, however, construction of a barrier is not feasible because driveway
openings are required to provide access to the residences, resulting in a potentially unsafe
condition as well as, a degradation in the barrier effectiveness. To achieve a noticeable
reduction in noise levels, 5 dBA or more, a noise barrier system must be continuous. A
break in the barrier system to allow access to the property would degrade the barrier s
effectiveness (see Table IV-21G).
Receptor 6-5 represents one residence on the west side of US 113 approximately 450 feet
south of Carey Road. Projected (2020) noise levels for Alternative 3N-34' Median of 71
dBA are in excess of the 67 dBA design noise level, however, the receptor does not meet the
reasonable criteria of 3 dBA for the Build versus No-Build condition to warrant
consideration of noise mitigation. In addition, construction of a barrier is not feasible
because a driveway opening is required to provide access to the residence, resulting in a
potentially unsafe condition, as well as a degradation in the barrier effectiveness. To achieve
a significant reduction in noise levels, 5 dBA or more, a noise barrier system must be
continuous. A break in the barrier system to allow access to the property would degrade the
barrier's effectiveness (see Table IV-21H).
IV-86
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Receptor 6-6 represents two residences and Vic's Country Store which is eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places in this vicinity. Projected noise levels of 71 are in
excess of the noise abatement criteria of 67 dB A for the Alternative 3N-34' Median build
condition, however, the receptor does not meet the reasonable criteria of 3 dB A for the Build
versus No-Build condition to warrant consideration of noise mitigation. Additionally, the
location of existing driveways as well as the MD 452 and Jones Road intersections prevents
a feasible method of mitigation at this location (see Table IV-21I).
Receptor 6-15 represents one residence on the west side of US 113 south of Racetrack Road
at 11241 Worcester Highway. Projected noise levels for Alternative 4N Modified-34'
Median and the 3N/4N Modified-341 Median Alternative are 67 dB A which meets the design
noise level, however, the receptor does not meet the reasonable criteria of 3 dB A for the
Build versus No-Build condition to warrant consideration of noise mitigation. In addition,
construction of a barrier is not feasible because a driveway opening is required to provide
access to the residence (see Table IV-21J).
Receptor 6-18 represents one residence on the west side of US 113 at 10129 Pitts Road.
Projected (2020) noise levels for Alternative 3N-34' Median of 66 dBA approaches the
design noise level of 67 dBA, and the Build condition increases noise levels over the No-
Build condition by more than 3 dBA. However construction of a barrier is not feasible
because of the intersection of Pitts Road with U.S. 113 and private access driveways would
result in a potentially unsafe condition, as well as, a degradation in the barrier effectiveness.
To achieve a noticeable reduction in noise levels, 5 dBA or more, a noise barrier system must
be continuous. A break in the barrier system to allow access to the property would degrade
the barrier's effectiveness (see Table IV-21K).
Receptor 7-4, representing one residence on the west side of US 113 south of Jarvis Road
at 10045 Worcester Highway, is predicted (2020) to receive noise levels of 66 dBA for
Alternative 3N-34' Median and 67 dBA for Alternative 4N Modified-34' Median and the
3N/4N Modified-341 Median Alternative which meets the design noise level criteria. The
noise sensitive area does meet the reasonableness criteria for a 3 dBA increase in Build
versus No-Build, however, construction of a barrier is not feasible because a driveway
opening is required to provide access to the residence, resulting in an unsafe condition, as
well as, a degradation in the barrier effectiveness. To achieve a noticeable reduction in noise
levels, 5 dBA or more, a noise barrier system must be continuous. A break in the barrier
system to allow access to the property would degrade the barrier's effectiveness (see Table
IV-21L).
Receptor 7-5, representing one residence on the west side of US 113 north of Jarvis Road
at 12235 Worcester Highway, is predicted to receive noise levels of 71 dBA for Alternative
3N-34' Median and the 3N/4N Modified-34' Median Alternative, and 72 dBA for Alternative
4N Modified-341 Median which is in excess of the design noise level of 67 dBA criteria. The
noise sensitive area does meet the reasonableness criteria for a 3 dBA increase in Build
versus No-Build, however, construction of a barrier is not feasible because a driveway
IV-87
-------
US 113 Planning Study
opening is required to provide access to the residence, resulting in an unsafe condition, as
well as a degradation in the barrier effectiveness. To achieve a noticeable reduction in noise
levels, 5 dBA or more, a noise barrier system must be continuous. A break in the barrier
system to allow access to the property would degrade the barrier's effectiveness (see Table
IV-21M).
Receptor 7-10, representing one residence on the east side of US 113 north of Bishopvife
Road at 12914 Worcester Highway, is predicted to receive noise levels for Alternative 3N-34
Median and the 3N/4N Modified-34' Median Alternative of 71 dBA which is in excess of the
design noise level of 67 dBA for the build alternative. The noise sensitive area does meet
the reasonableness criteria for a 3 dBA increase in Build versus No-Build, however,
construction of a barrier is not feasible because a driveway opening is required to provide
access to the residence, resulting in an unsafe condition, as well as, a degradation in the
barrier effectiveness. To achieve a noticeable reduction in noise levels, 5 dBA or more, a
noise barrier system must be continuous. A break in the barrier system to allow access to the
property would degrade the barrier's effectiveness (see Table IV-21N).
Receptor 7-11 represents four residences on the east side of US 113 north of Whaleyville
Road near 13102 Worcester Highway. Projected noise levels of 69 dBA are in excess of 67
dBA criteria for Alternative 3N-34' Median and the 3N/4N Modified-34' Median Alternative,
however the receptor does not meet the reasonableness criteria of 3 dBA for the Build versus
No-Build condition to warrant consideration of noise mitigation. Additionally, construction
of a barrier is not feasible because driveway openings are required to provide access to the
residences (see Table IV-21O).
Receptor 7-12, representing two residences on the west side of US 113, 400 feet north of
Whaleyville Road, is predicted (2020) to receive noise levels for Alternative 3N-341 Median
and the 3N/4N Modified-341 Median Alternative of 72 dBA which is in excess of the design
noise level of 67 dBA for the build alternative. The noise sensitive area does meet the
reasonableness criteria for a 3 dBA increase in Build versus No-Build, however a barrier is
not feasible because of the location of driveways and the intersection of Whaleyville/
Hammonds Road with U.S. 113 (see Table IV-21P).
Receptor 7-13, representing one home, has projected (2020) noise levels for Alternative 3N-
34' Median and the 3N/4N Modified-341 Median Alternative of 70 dBA which is in excess
of the design noise level criteria. The noise sensitive area does meet the reasonableness
criteria for a 3 dBA increase in Build versus No-Build, however, construction of a barrier is
not feasible because driveway openings are required to provide access to the residence,
resulting in a potentially unsafe condition, as well as, a degradation in the barrier
effectiveness. To achieve a noticeable reduction in noise levels, 5 dBA or more, a noise
barrier system must be continuous. A break in the barrier system to allow access to the
property would degrade the barrier effectiveness (see Table IV-21Q).
IV-88
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Receptor 7-14, representing the Elk's Lodge, has projected (2020) noise levels in excess of
the design noise level of 67 dB A for all alternatives, however, the receptor does not meet the
reasonable criteria of 3 dBA for the Build versus No-Build condition to warrant
consideration of noise mitigation. Additionally, mitigation measures are not feasible at this
location because of the location of the entrance/exit to the lodge (see Table IV-21R).
Receptor 7-15 representing three residences on the west side of US 113 near 13419 Morris
Road and Receptor 7-16 representing the Tans Peninsula Line Marker which is eligible for
the National Register for Historic Places has projected (2020) noise levels in excess of 67
dBA for all alternatives. The noise sensitive area does meet the reasonableness criteria for
a 3 dBA increase in the Build versus No-Build, however, mitigation measures are not
feasible at this location because of the openings for driveways and the intersection of Hotel
Road/Morris Road (see Tables IV-21S and IV-2 IT).
The spacing of residential driveways and intersecting roadways prevents the construction of
feasible noise mitigation for impacted receptor sites along any of the proposed Dualize
Alternatives. To achieve a significant reduction in noise levels, 5 dBA or more, a noise
barrier system must be continuous. A break in the barrier system for intersections and
property access would degrade the barrier's effectiveness, thereby eliminating the barrier as
a feasible mitigating device.
3. Construction Impacts
As with any major construction project, areas around the construction zone will experience
varied periods and degrees of noise which differ significantly from that generated by traffic.
The noise produced by construction can vary greatly based upon the type of construction, the
mix of equipment, and the construction procedures being employed. A project such as the
dualization of U.S. 113 would probably require the following types of equipment to be
utilized during construction:
Bulldozers and Earthmovers
Graders
Front End Loaders
Dump and other Diesel Trucks
Compressors
Jackhammers
The noise generated by these types of equipment will tend to increase the ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the work areas. However, a number of measure can be considered
in order to minimize noise emanating from these activities. Such measures include but may
not be limited to:
IV-89
$
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Conduct all construction activities during normal working hours on weekdays, when
; intrusion would probably not occur during sleep or outdoor recreation periods.
noise i
Any internal combustion engine used for any purpose on or related to the job should
be equipped with a proper operating muffler.
Maintenance of construction equipment should be regular and thorough to minimize
noise emission because of inefficiently tuned engines, poorly lubricated moving
parts, etc.
When appropriate, locate continuously operated diesel-powered equipment, such as
compressors or generators, in areas significantly distant or shielded from noise
sensitive area.
13.0
IV-90
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-21A:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 2-6
Feasibility Criteria
1.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(0 resource.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
1.
•2.
3.
3a.
4.
5.
6.
The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build noise
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that existed when prior
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited.
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
Yes
_
X
X
X
Yes
_
-
-
No
_
X
X
_
.
X
X
X
-
x
IV-91
-------
Table IV-21B:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 3-3
_.
Feasibility Criteria
=s=======:=
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(f) resource.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
_. '
Reasonableness Criteria
The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build noise
£vels is exacted to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of h.ghway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that ex.sted when pnor
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
Yes
No
X
Yes
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited. _ . .
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
X
X
IV-92
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-21C:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 3-4
Feasibility Criteria
1.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(0 resource.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
i.
2.
3.
3a.
4.
5.
6.
The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build noise
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that existed when prior
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited.
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
Yes
-
X
X
X
Yes
-
-
-
No
_
X
X
No
_
-
X
X
X
-
X
IV-93
-------
US 113 Planning Study
2.
3.
Table IV-21D:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 4-7
Feasibility Criteria
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access
3. Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem^
4
5.
6.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(0 resource.
X
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build noise
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that existed when prior
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited.
X
X
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
x_
X
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
IV-94
-------
175 113 Planning Study
Table IV-21E:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 4-9
Feasibility Criteria
1.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(f) resource.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
1.
2.
3.
3a.
4.
5.
6.
The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build noise
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that existed when prior
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited.
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
Yes
-
X
X
X
Yes
-
-
-
No
-
X
X
No
-
-
X
X
X
-
X
IV-95
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-21F:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 6-2 / 6-3
Feasibility Criteria
^— ii ^—^c^ i ••—^^^^—»^
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
• -- ' "
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
X
X
X
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build noise
bveis is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulat.ve effect of highly
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that ex.sted when pnor
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited. . .
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
IV-96
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-21G:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 6-4
Feasibility Criteria
l.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(0 resource.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
1.
2.
3.
3a.
4.
5.
6.
The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build noise
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that existed when prior
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited.
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
Yes
-
X
X
X
Yes
-
-
X
-
No
-
X
X
No
-
-
X
X
-
X
IV-97
-------
US 113 Planning Study
1.
Table IV-21H:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 6-5
Feasibility Criteria
:^=^=====^=^^==
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
2. Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
3. Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
4 Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
5.
6.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(0 resource.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
=======
1, The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
X
X
Yes
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
I 3 A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build noise
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that existed when prior
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA. _
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited. .—_
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
X
X
X
X
IV-98
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-21I:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 6-6
Feasibility Criteria
l.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(f) resource.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
1.
2.
3.
3a.
4.
5.
6.
The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
75% or more .of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build noise
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that existed when prior
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited.
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
Yes
-
X
X
X
Yes
-
-
-
No
-
X
X
No
-
-
X
X
X
-
X
IV-99
-------
Table IV-21J:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 6-15
Feasibility Criteria
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
—^^^-^—
_ • • •
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
"
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
. • -— • ~
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
__ —
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(f) resource.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
Yes
i -
A i HR A nr neater change in design year btild noise levels over design year no-build noise
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited. .
There is special circumstances, i.e. historicaycultural significance at this receptor.
X
IV-JOO
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-21K:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 6-18
Feasibility Criteria
1.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(0 resource.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
1.
2.
3.
3a.
4.
5.
6.
The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build noise
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that existed when prior
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited.
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
Yes
-
X
X
X
Yes
-
-
X
-
No
-
X
X
No
-
-
X
X
-
X
IV-101
-------
US 113 Planning Study
2.
6.
Table IV-21L:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 7-4
•
Feasibility Criteria
=======£:^====
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(0 resource.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
I. The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
3 A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-bu.ld no.se
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that existed when prior
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
3a. Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited.
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
Yes
X
Yes
X
X
X
X
IV-102
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-21M:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 7-5
Feasibility Criteria
1.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(f) resource.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
1.
2.
3.
3a.
4.
5.
6.
The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build noise
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that existed when prior
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited.
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
Yes
-
X
X
X
Yes
-
-
X
-
No
-
X
X
No
-
-
X
X
-
X
IV-103
-------
US 113 Planning Study
5.
2.
4.
6.
Table IV-21N:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 7-10
Feasibility Criteria
: ~~
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(0 resource.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
— j__ ' —~~——==
Reasonableness Criteria
1. The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
X
X
X
Yes
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
3 A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build no.se
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that existed when prior
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
3a. Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
5. The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited. „
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
X
X
X
IV-104
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-21O:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 7-11
Feasibility Criteria
l.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(f) resource.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
1.
2.
3.
3a.
4.
5.
6.
The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build noise
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that existed when prior
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited.
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
Yes
-
X
X
X
Yes
-
-
-
No
-
X
X
No
-
-
X
X
X
-
X
IV-105
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-21P:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 7-12
. ~
Feasibility Criteria
— ^^ =====s=======================:=:=^==!:
I Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
-
— — '"•
1.
2.
3.
3a.
4.
5.
6.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(f) resource.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
'
Reasonableness Criteria
— ^=^^^=====
The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build noise
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, OE the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptor's that existed when prior
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited.
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
Yes
==
X
X
X
-
Yes
=
-
X
X
-
• — "
No
-
X
X
==
No
•
-
X
-
^XJ
IV-106
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-21Q:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
i
NOISE RECEPTOR 7-13
Feasibility Criteria
1.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(f) resource.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
i.
2.
3.
3a.
4.
5.
6.
The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build noise
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that existed when prior
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited.
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
Yes
_
X
X
X
Yes
_
-
X
-
No
_
X
X
No
-
-
X
X
-
X
IV-107
-------
US 113 Planning Study
1.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
Table IV-21R:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 7-14
Feasibility Criteria
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
" Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
X
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
X
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(f) resource.
X
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
=r====================^^
The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
Yes
X
No
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build noise
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that existed when prior
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
3a.
4.
5.
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
X
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited.
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
X
IV-108
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-21S:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 7-15
Feasibility Criteria
l.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(0 resource.
There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
1.
2.
3.
3a.
4.
5.
>.
The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build noise
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that existed when prior
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited.
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
Yes
_
X
X
X
_
-
X
X
-
_
X
X
_
_
X
-
-------
US 113 Planning Study
2.
3a.
4.
5.
6.
Table IV-21T:
Criteria for Determining Feasibility and Reasonableness
of Noise Abatement
NOISE RECEPTOR 7-16
========
Feasibility Criteria
Noise Levels can be reduced by 7 dBA or more at impacted receptors.
Placement of barrier will restrict pedestrian or vehicular access.
Construction of a barrier will cause a safety or maintenance problem.
Noise Barrier can be constructed given topography, drainage, utilities, etc.
Noise Barrier will adversely impact on Section 4(0 resource.
6. There are non-highway noise sources that would reduce barrier effectiveness.
Reasonableness Criteria
1. The majority of impacted residences will receive at least a 7 dBA noise reduction.
Yes
75% or more of impacted and benefited residents approve of proposed noise abatement.
3 A 3 dBA or greater change in design year build noise levels over design year no-build no.se
levels is expected to result from the proposed action, or the cumulative effect of highway
improvements on the design year noise levels at receptors that existed when pr.or
improvements were made is equal to or greater than 3 dBA.
Noise Levels equal or exceed 72 dBA at impacted receptors.
Noise Barriers will have significant negative visual impact at impacted receptors.
The cost of the noise abatement is equal to or less than $50,000 per residence, impacted and
benefited.
There is special circumstances, i.e. historical/cultural significance at this receptor.
X
Yes
X
X
No
X
X
IV-110
-------
US 113 Planning Study
M. Visual Quality
The No-Build and TSM alternatives would not directly alter any visual resources. The quality of
travelers' and residents' views would be worsened to the extent that traffic congestion will increase.
Dualization along the existing alignment (the Alternatives 3S and 3N) would more than double the
pavement width, increasing the scale of the roadway. Viewsheds along the alignment would include
the expanded roadway. Alignments which involve the taking of strips of vegetated areas do not
eliminate the full depth of vegetation and therefore will not impact the visual character of these
areas. Alternatives 3N would be within the viewsheds of five historic properties. Visual impact on
historic properties is presented in Section IV-C of this DEIS.
Dualization on new alignment (Alternatives 4N Modified) would involve the construction of a new
four-lane divided roadway away from the existing facility. The roadway would be constructed on
new location to minimize impacts to residential and commercial properties. The new alignment is
primarily through vegetated areas creating a viewshed similar to much of the existing alignment.
Alternatives 4N Modified would be within the viewshed of one historic property; the
Transpeninsular Line Marker located near the Delaware state line. This property is located along
the existing roadway. The proposed alignments would maintain the existing distance from the
historic property. Visual impact to this property may be minimized through landscaping designs at
this location to be determined during later phases of this project.
Alternatives 3N/4N Modified combine sections of the 3N and 4N Modified alternatives to avoid
impacts to areas of environmental concern. These alternatives follow the Alternative 4N alignment
from the southern limit of the northern study area, north to Jarvis Road where it follows the
Alternative 3N alignment north to the Maryland/Delaware state line. The impact of these alternatives
on visual quality is as described for the sections of Alternatives 3N and 4N Modified that it utilizes.
IV-111
-------
US 113 Planning Study
N. Municipal, Industrial and Residual Waste Sites
As noted in Chapter ffl, Section M, a preliminary field reconnaissance revealed 23 potentially
contaminated sites in the vicinity of either the southern and northern study areas. Three of these
sites have a high potential for liability and if impacted warrant formal Phase I study and will
probably require Phase H investigation. Sixteen sites possess a moderate potential for liability and
if impacted will need formal Phase I study. These sites will probably not require a Phase H
investigation. Four additional sites have a low liability potential and should not require any
additional investigation after the formal Phase I studies (see Table m-19). A definition of high,
moderate, and low potential for liability is provided in Chapter m, Section M of this DEIS.
Neither the No-Build, the TSM nor Alternative 2S-20' Median would impact any of the potential
waste sites identified.
None of the nine potential sites in the vicinity of the Alternatives 3S alignments will be impacted
by that alternative. Of the fourteen sites in the vicinity of the Alternatives 3N alignments, eight may
be impacted by the proposed alignment. Two of these sites have low potential for liability, five have
a moderate potential for liability, and one site has a high potential for liability. The alignment of
Alternatives 4N Modified may involve four sites. Of these sites, one has a low potential for liability,
two sites have a moderate potential for liability and one site has a high potential for liability. The
Alternatives 3N/4N Modified may impact five sites. Two of these sites have a low potential for
liability, two sites have a moderate potential for liability and one site has a high potential for liability.
Table IH-19 lists the identified potential waste sites along with the potential for liability. The
locations of these sites are shown on Figures DI-14A through 14D. Table IV-22, identifies the sites
potentially affected by each of the dualize alternatives.
It is recommended that subsurface soil and groundwater samples be collected and analyzed as a part
of a Phase H-Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) prior to acquisition of property involving any of
these sites. The purpose of the PSI will be to chemically characterize the sites in question and
determine if hazardous materials will be encountered during construction of the roadway. As part
of final design, the area of contact with each of these sites will be thoroughly investigated and
necessary site specific measure to minimize impacts will be identified. This will most likely involve
the removal and disposal of the waste at an authorized and permitted disposal facility.
IV-112
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table IV-22: Potential Waste Sites Affected by Each Build Alternative
Alternative
3N-201 Median (50 MPH)
3N 34' Median (50 MPH)
3N-20' Median (60 MPH)
3N-34' Median (60 MPH)
4N Modified-201 Median
4N Modified-34' Median
3N/4N Modified-201 Median
3N/4N Modified-34' Median
3N-201 Median (50 MPH)
3N 341 Median (50 MPH)
3N-20' Median (60 MPH)
3N-34' Median (60 MPH)
3N/4N Modified-20' Median
3N/4N Modified-34' Median
3N-20' Median (50 MPH)
3N 34' Median (50 MPH)
3N-20' Median (60 MPH)
3N-34' Median (60 MPH)
4N Modified-20' Median
4N Modified-34' Median
3N/4N Modified-20' Median
3N/4N Modified-34' Median
4N Modified-201 Median
4N Modified-34' Median
3N-20' Median (50 MPH)
3N 34' Median (50 MPH)
3N-20' Median (60 MPH)
3N-341 Median (60 MPH)
3N 34' Median (50 MPH)
4N Modified-20' Median
4N Modified-34' Median
3N/4N Modified-201 Median
3N/4N Modified-34' Median
3N-20' Median (50 MPH)
3N 34' Median (50 MPH)
3N-20' Median (60 MPH)
3N 34' Median (60 MPH)
3N-20' Median (50 MPH)
3N 34' Median (50 MPH)
3N-201 Median (60 MPH)
3N 34' Median (60 MPH)
Site ID
1
2
4
5
8
9
12
13
Potential Site
Ocean Designs Fiberglass and Boat Works
Cross Roads Carry Out
12829 Worcester Highway
Sharpgas Propane Tank Enclosure
Perdue Farms Hatchery #7
Hammonds Store
Vic's Country Store
Sandbar Marine
Potential Liability
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
IV-113
-------
US 113 Planning Study
O. Energy
A comparison of the energy usage requirements for the operation, maintenance and construction of
the alternatives was completed for the DEIS. This comparison found that the long term energy
requirements of the No-Build, TSM, and 2S-20' Median alternatives will be similar. Although the
energy requirements for construction are not applicable for the No-Build Alternative, this savings
will be off-set by the increased energy consumption due to projected traffic congestion in the design
year. The TSM Alternative and the 2S-20' Median alternative will require a relatively low amount
of energy for construction but some long term savings will be realized through the reduction of
traffic congestion.
It has been determined that each of the dualize alternatives will have similar energy requirements.
Each dualize alternative will require the expenditure of energy for the manufacture of construction
materials, the transportation of the materials to the site, and the construction of the roadway.
Maintenance energy requirements for the dualize alternatives will be similar to those of the No-
Build, TSM alternatives, and Alternative 2S-20' Median. Operational energy expenditures for the
dualize alternatives will be lower than those for the other alternatives because the traffic congestion
will be reduced and safety will be greatly improved reducing the need for emergency services.
The No-Build Alternative will require the least amount of expended energy over the design life of
this project. The TSM Alternative will require slightly more energy than the No-Build for the
construction of the additional intersection improvements. The Dualize Alternatives will require the
greatest amount of energy, with Alternatives 4N Modified needing more energy than Alternative 2S-
20' Median or Alternatives 3N because less of the existing road will be retained. The 3N/4N
Modified-34' Median alternatives will have energy requirements intermediate to those of
Alternatives 3N and 4N Modified.
P. Construction Impacts
Construction activities for any of the proposed dualize alternatives and the 2S-20' Median alternative
will have temporary impacts to resources, residences, and travelers within the immediate vicinity of
the project. These impacts will include traffic detours, potential air and fugitive dust emissions,
increased noise levels, natural resources, and visual quality.
1. Traffic Detours
Detours and road closures during construction will create temporary inconveniences for
residents, business owners and travelers. Maintenance and protection of traffic plans will
be developed during final design to mitigate access impacts and to minimize delays
throughout the project. These plans will include appropriate signs, pavement markings, and
media announcements. Access to all businesses and residences will be maintained through
construction scheduling.
IV-114
-------
US 113 Planning Study
2.
Air Emissions
The operation of heavy equipment would have minor, temporary impacts on air quality
during construction of the alternatives. The primary source of impact would be windblown
soil and dust in active construction zones, and secondarily from increased levels of exhaust
pollutants.
Measures will be taken to reduce fugitive dust and other emissions generated during
construction by wetting disturbed soils, staging soil-disturbing activities, and prompt
revegetation of disturbed areas. Emissions from construction equipment will be controlled
by the contractors in accordance with state and federal regulations.
3. Construction Noise Impacts
Temporary noise impacts will occur in the study area during the construction of any of the
build alternatives. Sources of this noise would include earth moving equipment, vibratory
rollers, pavers, trucks, jackhammers, and compressors. In most cases, the'effects of
increased noise levels associated with construction equipment are limited to within 300 feet
of the source. These effects would typically be limited to weekday, daylight hours in
accordance with local ordinances.
Several mitigation procedures can be followed to assist in minimizing the temporary impacts
of construction noise. Adjustments to the equipment, the provision of temporary noise
barriers, varying the construction activity areas to redistribute noise events, good
communication with the public, and monetary incentives to the contractor could be
considered to lessen the temporary noise impacts. These mitigation measures will be
examined during final design to minimize public impacts and annoyances during
construction.
Construction noise impacts are discussed fully in Section IV-L.
4. Natural Resources
Temporary construction-related impacts to soils, surface waters, and wetlands are anticipated
to occur as the result of this project. Temporary and permanent impacts to these resources
have been addressed in throughout Chapter IV.
Temporary impacts to soils include increased erosion potential from areas cleared of
vegetation for construction activities. Standard sediment and erosion control measures will
be implemented in accordance with state and local regulations to minimize adverse impacts.
IV-115
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Temporary construction-related impacts to wetlands include increased sedimentation, in-
stream and in-wetland work for the construction of abutments and other structures, and
temporary construction crossings. The use of surface mats, clean rock fills, and other
measures to be determined at final design, will be used to minimize temporary impacts to
wetlands. Original grades will be restored as needed in temporary wetland impact areas and
native vegetation will be re-established.
Temporary impacts to surface water resources are also anticipated from construction-related
activities. Temporary impacts would result from temporary stream crossings, dikes and coffer
dams, temporary channel relocations, and suspended solids from increased erosion and
sedimentation. Runoff from disturbed areas may contain high sediment loads, which can
reduce both the diversity and numbers of organisms .in the aquatic environment. Physical
impacts such as temporary stream crossings and coffer dams, disrupt the stream substrate and
could affect fish migrations through these areas. This will eliminate benthic
macroinvertebrate populations in this portion of the stream during the construction period,
and for a short period after construction until migration and drift allow for the re-colonization
of the area. Changes to the channel widths resulting from coffer dam construction may
generate excessive scouring of the substrate and generate sediment impacts immediately
downstream of the construction area.
5. Visual Quality
Construction activity and some of the materials stored for the project may be displeasing to
residents in the immediate vicinity of the project. This visual impact will be temporary and
should pose no substantial problem in the long-term.
Q. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
The long-term benefits of the dualize alternatives would occur at the expense of short-term
construction impacts in the immediate vicinity of project area. These short-term effects would
include localized noise and air pollution, and minor traffic delays. With proper controls, they would
not have a lasting effect on the environment.
The local short-term impacts by the construction of the dualize alternatives are consistent with the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity for the local area, state, and region. The
Comprehensive Development Plan for Worcester County identifies US 113 as a key element of the
county's regional arterial highway system. The Plan calls for US 113 to be upgraded to four lanes
throughout its length. This project has been included in the Highway Needs Inventory (HNI) since
the early 1960's and is consistent, therefore, with the Comprehensive Plan that encompasses the
study area. The transportation improvements addressed in this document have been considered and
proposed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
IV-116
-------
US 113 Planning Study
R. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which Would be Involved
, in the Proposed Action
- The construction of any of the dualize alternatives and the 2S-20' Median alternatives involve the
irreversible and irretrievable commitment of various natural, human, and fiscal resources. The
' dualize alternatives and Alternative 2S-20' Median would require the commitment of land to new
highway construction, which is considered an irreversible commitment during the time period that
* the land is used for a highway facility. If a greater need for the land be proven, or the highway
proven to be no longer necessary, it is possible to re-convert the property to another use. It is not
- anticipated, however, that either of these two situations will occur.
«
Fossil fuels, labor, and construction materials will be used in considerable quantities for the
Alternatives. In addition, labor and natural resources are also used in the quarrying, manufacturing,
mixing, and transporting of construction materials. The materials used in the highway construction
process are irretrievable, however, they are not in short supply and their use should not have an
adverse effect on continued availability of these resources.
Selection of a dualize alternative or Alternative 2S-20' Median would require an irretrievable
commitment of state and federal funds for right-of-way acquisition, materials, and construction.
Funds for annual maintenance would also be required. The loss of tax revenues from private land
taken for highway use would be an irretrievable revenue loss for Worcester County.
The commitment of these resources is established on the premise that the local and regional
residents, commuters, and business communities will benefit from the proposed highway
improvements. Benefits which are anticipated to outweigh the loss of these resources would include
increased safety, accident reduction, improvements to traffic flow, and reduction in travel time.
IV-117
-------
-------
V.
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
US 113 Planning Study
Snow Hill, Maryland to Delaware State Line
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
-------
;!!; i!:i
,4: : : « ;!,,! inl i.li
i in! i i
I!!
i^l/tf Ha'Sp-i :
i m • *
i I
» hfe I
S: !:»;;
ill1
m
ii
.,nr.',i:;i: .si? i ?
"I
i
i i
msi,
i
sis,
jj ; ,1 , i
iiiii
^^^^^
! i •!•
i
* i?
i mm
•I ! I-1!'! I ! iB I
;!,-! f,i"'*i"ii, f1; i ..... ! ii'-
i,:,; J2ii_!tSti ^l^lul iijigfj
i '[>;„ fl|'(>> ;
!lig£L%LJj£!£
,. >
-------
US 113 Planning Study
V. SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
A. Introduction
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303(c)) permits the use of
land from a publicly owned public park or recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or land from
any significant historic site (as determined by the officials having jurisdiction over the park,
recreation area, refuge or historic site) only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use
of land from the property and that the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the
property resulting from such use. This chapter contains the documentation to comply with Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
B. Project Description
The project study area for US 113 (Worcester Highway) encompasses the remaining 23.8 miles of
two-lane US 113 in Maryland, extending from south of Snow Hill, Maryland north to the Delaware
state line. The 4.4 miles of presently dualized US 113 highway around Berlin, Maryland are not
included in this study. The proposed action would improve the remaining two-lane sections of US
113, thereby improving safety conditions and traffic operations along this critical transportation link
on the Delmarva peninsula. The project area as shown in Figures S-l and S-2A through 2D, consists
of two areas. The southern study area extends along US 113 from south of Snow Hill, Maryland
to south of Berlin, Maryland (approximately 16.3 miles). The northern study area extends from
north of Berlin to the Delaware state line (approximately 7.5 miles).
The purpose of this study is to improve vehicular safety conditions and traffic operations along the
two-lane portions of US 113 from south of Snow Hill to the Delaware state line. Need for this
project is demonstrated by the fatal accident rate in the northern study area, which is significantly
higher than the statewide average for similar two-lane rural highways in Maryland. Figures I-1A
through ID identify the locations and provides a description of the 40 fatal accidents for the period
January 1980 through April 1997. A total of 46 people have died as a result of vehicular accidents
along the two-lane portions of US 113 during this period. In addition, the Level of Service (LOS)
for the northern study area is predicted to decline from its current LOS D rating during the summer
months, to a projected LOS F by the design year 2020.
The Purpose and Need for improvements along the two-lane portions of US 113 are fully described
in Chapter I of this document. Existing roadway conditions along US 113, traffic operations and
levels of service, accident statistics, and details on fatal accidents along US 113 are also presented
in Chapter I.
V-l
-------
US 113 Planning Study
C. Alternatives Considered
Following a Public Alternates Meeting held in November 1995 and based on citizen and
environmental agency comments, the following alternatives were retained for detailed study (see
Chapter H and Appendix A of this DEIS for details and maps on these alternatives).
Table S-l presents a summary of the environmental impacts for each alternative.
+ No-Build Alternatives (Alternatives IS and IN) - Baseline
The No-Build Alternatives would not provide major improvements to the existing US 113 roadways.
Minor improvements would occur as part of normal maintenance and safety operations. These
improvements, however, do not provide features that would prevent further opposite direction
collisions where the probable cause is identified as the failure to drive in the designated lane or
failure to keep right of the centerline. Specific improvements recently implemented or programmed
for implementation are listed in Tables II-1A through ID, locations of these improvements are
shown on Figures H-2A through H-2D. Typical sections are shown on Figure H-3. The routine
maintenance operations would not measurably affect roadway capacity or reduce the accident rate.
Spot improvements by SHA would continue as funding becomes available. Although the No-Build
Alternatives will not meet the project need, they are being used as a basis for comparison for the
analysis of the other alternatives.
+ Transportation Systems Management Alternatives
(Alternatives 2S and 2N)
The Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternatives would provide improvements along
the existing roadway to enhance safety and reduce traffic congestion without major alteration to the
existing two-lane highway. The proposed TSM improvements include intersection improvements,
full length pavement overlays and additional measures to improve the safety of the existing two-lane
roadway. While these improvements are not presently programmed for implementation, they would
be part of an integrated plan of phased safety and capacity improvements. The TSM Alternatives
include the continued short-term spot improvements such as signing and marking, street lighting,
warning Hashers, and addresses longer-term improvements with additional turning, acceleration/
deceleration, and bypass lanes; skid resistant pavement overlays; rumble slots along the center line
and along the outside edges of pavement; and, the limiting of passing through some areas. The
improvements would be prioritized by SHA during the final design phase. Specific TSM
improvements are listed in Table H-l, locations of these improvements are shown on Figures H-2A
through E-2D. Typical sections are shown on Figure II-3.
*• Alternative 2S - 20' Median
(see Appendix A, Figures 1 through 8)
Alternative 2S-20' Median typically follows along the centerline of the existing US 113 alignment,
provides a 20' median with a traffic barrier, but retains the one-lane per direction configuration. This
alternative also provides four passing lanes, 10-foot shoulders, and intersection improvements. This
_ — -
-------
US 113 Planning Study
alternative does not address all of the safety issues along US 113, would introduce some new safety
concerns, and does not fully address capacity/operational problems. It would, however, provide low-
cost options to improve safety at intersection along US 113 and improve safety along the roadway.
Typical sections for Alternative 2S-20' Median are shown on Figure n-4. Detailed plans for the
Alternative 2S-20'-Median, at a scale of 1" = 400', are presented in Appendix A, Figures 1 though
• Dualization Alternatives
The dualization alternatives under consideration for US 113 propose a four-lane divided roadway
with a median. Access would be partially controlled where possible and median and roadside
landscaping would be provided. The dualization alternatives in the southern study area have been
developed for a design speed of 60 MPH with both 20-foot wide and 34-foot wide medians
evaluated. The dualization alternatives in the northern study area have been developed for design
speeds of both 50 MPH and 60 MPH along the existing US 113 alignment, and 60 MPH along the
new location alignment. Median widths of 20-feet and 34-feet have been evaluated for all
dualization alternatives in the northern study area. In addition, these dualization alternatives in the
northern study area have been developed in segments with common end points so that they can be
used in various combinations.
The dualization alternatives retained for detailed study are graphically presented on Figures II-5A
through II-5D. Typical sections for the dualization alignment with a 20-foot median with traffic
barrier (Alternatives 3S-20' Median and 3N-201 Median) are shown on Figure H-6; the typical
sections for the dualization alignment with a 34-foot median (Alternatives 3S-34' Median and 3N-341
Median) are shown on Figure H-7; the typical sections for the new location alignments (Alternatives
4N-201 Median and 4N-34' Median) are presented on Figure H-8. Detailed plans of the dualization
alternatives, at a scale of 1" = 400', are presented in Appendix A, Figures 8 though 17.
+ Dualization Alternatives Along the Existing Alignment in the Southern Study Area
Alternative 3S-20' Median and 3S-34' Median (see Appendix A, Figures 8 through 14)
Alternatives 3S-20' Median and 3S-341 Median would involve the construction of a new two-lane
roadway adjacent to the existing facility and the retention of the existing roadway as the northbound
or southbound roadway to the extent possible. These alternatives would use existing right-of-way
where possible. The typical roadway section would consist of two 12-foot travel lanes in each
direction, a median, 10-foot outside shoulders, and 20-feet of safety grading on both sides of the
roadway where appropriate. This alternative is being designed for a 60 MPH design speed with two
alternative median widths and treatments. The proposed typical sections for Alternative 3S are
shown on Figure H-6 for 3S-20' Median and Figure H-7 for 3S-34' Median.
V-3
-------
US 113 Planning Study
4- Dualization Alternatives Along the Existing Alignment in the Northern Study Area
Alternative 3N-20' Median (50 MPH), Alternative 3N-34' Median (50 MPH)
Alternative 3N-201 Median (60 MPH), Alternative 3N-34' Median (60 MPH)
(see Appendix A, Figures 15 through 17)
The typical roadway section would consist of two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, a median,
10-foot outside shoulders, and safety grading on both sides of the roadway where appropriate. This
alternative is being evaluated for both a 50 MPH and a 60 MPH design speed with two alternative
median widths and safety grading treatments. The proposed typical sections for Alternative 3N are
shown on Figure H-6 for 3N-201 Median and on Figure H-7 for 3N-341 Median.
+ Dualization Alternatives on New Alignment in the Northern Study Area
Alternative 4N-20' Median, Alternative 4N-34' Median
(see Appendix A, Figures 15 through 17)
The dualization on new alignments would involve the construction of a new four-lane divided
roadway away from the existing facility. The roadway would be constructed on new location to
minimize impacts to residential and commercial properties.
The typical roadway section would consist of two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, a median,
10-foot outside shoulders, and 20-feet of safety grading on both sides of the roadway where
appropriate. This alternative is being designed for a 60 MPH design speed with two alternative
median widths and treatments. The proposed typical sections for Alternative 4N Modified (for both
the 20' Median and for the 34' Median designs) are shown on Figure H-8.
• Dualization Alternatives Along a Combination of Existing and New Alignments in the
Northern Study Area ,„,,»» ,.
Alternative 3N/4N Modified-201 Median, Alternative 3N/4N Modified-34 Median
(see Appendix A, Figures 15 through 17)
A Combination Alternative which uses portions of Alternative 3N and Alternative 4N Modified is
also being considered. The typical sections for the Combination Alternative would be the same as
those used for Alternatives 3N and 4N Modified respectively. This alternative is being designed for
a 60 MPH design speed with two alternative median widths and treatments. The Combination
Alternative follows the Alternative 4N Modified alignment from US 50 through the previously
graded interchange area, across existing US 113 at MD 589 and bypasses the Town of Showell to
the east. Like Alternative 4N Modified, the Combination Alternative ties back into existing US 113
just north of Showell, but then follows Alternative 3N along the existing alignment of US 113 to the
northern project terminus at the Delaware state line.
V-4
-------
US 113 Planning Study
D. Description of Section 4(f) Resources
The area of potential effect (APE), concurred with by the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) on
August 30, 1995, was defined to include the area 500-feet east and west of the existing US 113
roadway in most of the project corridor, and, in the northern portion of the study area, from north
of the town of Berlin to the Delaware state line, where relocation alternatives are also being studied,
the APE width expanded to approximately 500-feet beyond the limits of the furthermost eastern and
western alternatives and included the area between potential alignments. The west boundary of the
northern study area extended to the Maryland and Delaware Railroad Corridor.
The National Register's standards for evaluating the significance of properties were developed to
recognize the accomplishments of all peoples who have made a contribution to our country's history
and heritage.
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture is present in
districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
(A) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
(B) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(C) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic
values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction; or
(D) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
The Maryland Historical Trust (MHT), which is the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for
the state of Maryland, has concurred that six (6) historic structures identified in the project's Area
of Potential Effects (APE) are either listed on or are eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) (see Chapter VI, Comments and Coordination).
Of the six sites identified as National Register or National Register eligible, three sites are not
Section 4(f) resources as they are not directly impacted by the project alternatives. These three
historic structures were identified as listed or eligible for listing on the National Register and are
described in Chapter m, Section B. Review of the alternative alignments showed that the use of
three of these properties; St. Martin's Church, the Transpeninsular Line Marker (WO-479), and the
Lemuel Showell House (WO-284), would not be required by the proposed transportation project
None of the alternative alignments would require acquisition of property from these sites. Although
adverse effect determination were determined for two of these sites (St, Martin's Church and Lemuel
Showell House) under various alternatives, neither the changes in visual or noise environment
would effect the properties under which these sites were determined to be eligible for the National
Register, and do not substantially impair the historic integrity of these sites. And thus, these
alternatives do not constitute a constructive use of these properties.
V-5
-------
US 113 Planning Study
The 3N alternatives require right-of-way acquisition from within the historic boundaries of the
following three historic resources. This action constitutes a use of these properties and therefore
qualifies them for protection under Section 4(f).
4- Vic's Country Store (WO-472). Vic's Country Store, determined eligible for the National
Register in March 1996 under criterion C (as a representative of a type), is located on the east
side of US 113 at the intersection of Carey Road, Jones Road, and Friendship Road. The
building is a good, intact example of early 20th century roadside architecture, and as a
store/gas station in a small crossroads community - once quite common, but now a dying
form.
Vic's Country Store is determined to be a Section 4(f) resource as it would be impacted by
the 3N Alternatives. These alternatives would each require acreage from the historic
boundary of this resource and would impact the structure as well. Details of the impacts of
each alternative are presented in Section E of this Chapter.
4- Hale Farm/Mariner Farm (WO-283). The Hale Farm/Mariner Farm, determined eligible
in April 1996, is located on the east side of US 113 between MD 90 and MD 589, south of
Showell. The property, including a mid-19th century farmhouse, a log corncrib, and a
smokehouse, provides an excellent representative example of an intact, mid-19th century
farmhouse and a cohesive grouping of domestic outbuildings, and is eligible for the National
Register under criterion C (as representative of a type).
The Hale Farm/Mariner Farm is determined to be a Section 4(f) resource as it would be
impacted by any of the 3N Alternatives. These alternatives would each require acreage from
the historic boundary of this resource. Details of the impacts of each alternative are present
in Section E of this Chapter.
4 Showell Store (WO-289). The Showell Store, determined eligible for the National Register
in January 1997, is located at the northwest corner of US 113 and Pitts Road in Showell.
. Significant as a village store and commercial center for the surrounding area from the mid-
19th century to the present, the Showell Store is considered eligible for the National Register
under criterion A, as it reflects the broad patterns of local history.
Archeological 18WO209, considered potentially eligible for the National Register on the
basis of its information potential, is within the boundary of the Showell Store. This
multicomponent prehistoric and historic period site was identified by Phase I Survey.
Should this site be impacted by the selected alternative, Phase JI archeological evaluation
will be undertaken to conclusively determine the site's National Register eligibility.
The Showell Store is determined to be a Section 4(f) resource as it would be impacted by any
of the 3N Alternatives. These alternatives would each require taking the entire resource.
Details of the impacts of each alternative are present in Section E of this Chapter.
V-6
-------
US 113 Planning Study
E. Impacts and Measures to Minimize Harm
The historic properties impacted by the 3N Alternatives include Vic's Country Store, the Hale
Farm/Mariner Farm, and the Showell Store. Figure V-l shows the locations of the historic sites in
relation to the proposed dualization alternatives. The impacts of the alternatives to each Section 4(f)
property are summarized in Table V-l. Descriptions of impacts and measures to avoid and minimize
harm follow Table V-l. Alternatives IN, 2N, 4N Modified and Combination Alternatives 3N/4N
Modified do not impact these Section 4(f) resources.
Table V-l: Historic and Archaeological Resources
Northern
Study Area Alternatives '
1N/2N
3N-20* Median (50 MPH)
3N-34' Median (50 MPH)
3N-20' Median (60 MPH)
3N-34' Median (60 MPH)
4N Mod.-20' Median
4N Mod.-34' Median
3N/4N Mod.-20' Median
3N/4N Mod.-34' Median
Historic Resources Effected
Vic's Country Store
Hale Farm/Mariner
Farm
Showell Store
No impact to historic properties
Requires 0.13 acres from
historic boundary.
Requires 0.15 acres from
historic boundary.
Impacts the structure.
Requires 0. 1 8 acres from
historic boundary.
Impacts the structure.
Requires 0.30 acres from
historic boundary.
Impacts the structure.
; Requires 0.42 acres
from historic boundary.
Requires 0.54 acres
from historic boundary.
Requires 0.49 acres from
historic boundary.
Requires 0.62 acres from
historic boundary.
Requires taking of the
entire property (0.44 acres
and the building).
Requires taking of the
entire property (0.44 acres
and the building).
Requires taking of the
entire property (0.44 acres
and the building).
Requires taking of the
entire property (0.44 acres
and the building).
No impact to historic properties.
No impact to historic properties.
1. No historic resources in the southern study area would be impacted by alternatives currently under consideration.
+ Vic's Country Store
Vic's Country Store, located on the east side of US 113, is approximately 63-feet from the
existing edge of pavement of US 113 between MD 452 (Friendship Road) and Jones Road.
The historic boundary of this resource encompasses approximately 1.19 acres. The frontal
boundary matches the existing right-of-way of US 113 and is approximately 18-feet from the
edge of pavement. Photographs of the site, its setting, and its relationship to existing US 113
are included on Figure V-2. Impacts, avoidance and minimization effects are presented in
Table V-2 and are discussed below.
V-7
-------
MARYLAND
BISHOPV1LLE
.•i-""j~"'~s "-•"*"*
':
i I
ALTERNATIVE 4N
MODIFIED
ALTERNATIVE 3N
i" Mariner
US 113 PLANNING STUDY
Historic Sites Affected By
Alternatives Retained For
Detail Study
NORTHERN STUDY AREA
• Historic Site Location
— — DuaHzatton on Existing Alignment
DuaEzation on New Alignment
-------
Vic's Country Store ( Looking east across US 113)
Vic's Country Store (Looking south along US 113)
* See Figure V-3 for plan
US 113 PLANNING STUDY
Photographs of
Vic's Country Store
Mxryltntl
StaltHighwty
April 1997
Figure
V-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Impacts
As a part of the No-Build improvement (Alternative IN), the construction of a northbound
acceleration/deceleration lane and a southbound bypass lane are proposed at the US 113/MD
452 intersection. These improvements would not require any right-of-way from this resource.
Under the TSM Alternative (Alternative 2N-Basic), stop lines will be painted at the Carey
Road and Jones Road intersections. These improvements would not require right-of-way
from this resource.
Near the store, the 3N alternatives transition from widening on the east of existing US 113
to the west. The proposed edge of pavement would be approximately 48 to 50-feet from the
front of the store (depending on the median width and design speed). No changes in the
roadway profile are anticipated. Each of these alternatives would require the taking of right-
of-way from the site. Alternatives 3N-341 Median (50 MPH), 3N-201 Median (60 MPH), and
3N-34' Median (60 MPH) would have an impact to the structure itself. This impact to the
structure would involve the taking of the existing porch.
The 4N Modified alternatives and the 3N/4N Modified alternatives are more than 2,600-feet
(0.5 miles) to the west of Vic's Country Store and would have no Section 4(f) impact on this
resource.
Avoidance and Minimization
To avoid impacts to this property, the degree of curvature could be altered to create a flatter
curve at this location under each of the 3N alternatives (see Figure V-3). This would move
the alignment west, away from and off of the historic property.
This avoidance alternative would require the taking of additional right-of-way of between
0.60 and 0.83 acres (depending on the median width and design speed), from the west side
of US 113. The avoidance alternative would also require relocation of one business, one
residence and one four unit apartment building under each of the 3N alternatives.
A modification of the proposed typical cross section with the construction of a curb and
gutter section with guardrail along the northbound roadway between Friendship and Jones
Roads, would minimize impacts to this historic site under each of the 3N alternatives. Under
this option, the structure on this property would not be affected, however, 0.04 acres of right-
of-way would still be required from within the historic boundary. This minimization
alignment would bring the proposed edge of pavement to within 28 to 35-feet (depending on
the median width and the design speed) of the porch.
V-8
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Table V-2: Vic's Country Store Impacts, Avoidance, and Minimization
Alternatives
Vic's Country Store
Impacts
Avoidance
Minimization
3N-201 Median (50 MPH)
Requires 0.13 acres from
historic boundary.
Proposed edge of
pavement would be 50-
feet from structure.
Requires 0.83 acres of
additional right-of-way.
Requires relocation of:
1 residence,
1 business, and
1 four unit apt. building.
One residential relocation
required under the
original alignments
would be avoided.
Requires 0.04 acres
(1,545 SF) from historic
boundary.
3N-341 Median (50 MPH)
Requires 0.15 acres from
historic boundary.
Impacts the structure
Proposed edge of
pavement would be 48-
feet from structure.
Requires 0.78 acres of
additional right-of-way.
Requires relocation of:
1 residence
1 business
1 four unit apt. building.
One residential relocation
required under the
; original alignments
would be avoided.
Requires 0.04 acres
(1,545 SF) from historic
boundary.
3N-201 Median (60 MPH)
Requires 0.18 acres from
historic boundary.
Impacts the structure.
Proposed edge of
pavement would be 50-
feet from structure.
Requires 0.60 acres of
additional right-of-way.
Requires relocation of:
1 residence
> 1 business
1 1 four unit apt. building
One residential relocation
required under the
original alignments
would be avoided.
Requires 0.04 acres
(1,775 SF) from historic
boundary.
3N-341 Median (60 MPH)
Requires 0.30 acres from
historic boundary.
Impacts the structure.
Proposed edge of
pavement would be 48-
feet from structure.
Requires 0.65 acres of
additional right-of-way.
Requires relocation of:
I 1 residence
1 business
1 four unit apt. building
One residential relocation
required under the
original alignments
would be avoided.
Requires 0.04 acres
(1,775 SF) from historic
boundary.
V-9
-------
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Mitigation Measures
Vic's Country Store
The minimization of impacts to Vic's Country Store, as described in Section E, proposes a
modification of the proposed typical cross section for Alternative 3N; constructing a curb and
gutter section with guardrail on the northbound roadway between Friendship and Jones
roads. This modification would minimize impacts to this historic site. The structure on this
property would not be affected, however 0.04 acres of right-of-way would be required from
the historic boundary.
Mitigation of this impact could involve landscaping to shield the historic resource from the
structure as well as preparation of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) and a
Historic Engineering and Architectural Record (HEAR). Sometime around 1954, Vic's
Country Store was relocated on its existinjg site for the widening of US 113 and relocation
of MD 452. The structure may be able to be relocated on site once again to avoid impact to
the structure as would occur under each 3N alternative.
Hale Farm/Mariner Farm
The minimization of impacts to the Hale Farm/Mariner Farm, as described in Section E,
proposes a modification of the proposed typical cross section for Alternative 3N;
constructing a curb and gutter section with guardrail on the northbound roadway between
Friendship and Jones roads. This modification would minimize impacts to this historic site.
The structure on this property would not be affected, however 0.34 acres of right-of-way
would be required from the historic boundary. Mitigation of this impact could involve
landscaping to shield the historic resource from the structure as well as preparation of a
Historic American Building Survey (HABS) and a Historic Engineering and Architectural
Record (HEAR). Additionally, the brick entrance to the front of this property could be
rebuilt.
Showell Store
Minimization efforts at the Showell Store were not feasible. Mitigation measures could
include preparation of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) and a Historic
Engineering and Architectural Record (HEAR).
V-14
-------
US 113 Planning Study
G. Correspondence and Coordination
Public involvement and agency coordination have been integral parts of the project development
process as presented in Chapter I, Section D.
Coordination with the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) has been ongoing, in accordance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, to address the adverse effects of some
of the alternatives (see Chapter VI, Comments and Coordination). MHT has reviewed preliminary
alternative alignments and has offered comments on SHA's assessment of impacts for architectural
resources, as well as comments on a draft Phase 1 archeological report. MHT has urged careful
examination and consideration of the options which would avoid and minimize the project's adverse
effects on historic and archeological properties. Coordination will continue with MHT, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, and other interested parties regarding proposed mitigation
measures and development of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for this project. An MOA
would include stipulations addressing the specific treatment of affected historic standing structures
and the procedures for completing evaluation and treatment of archeological resources affected by
the selected alternative.
V-15
-------
Public Involvement Correspondence
US 113 Planning Study
-------
11^^ (I I
111 111 111 111 III 111
I
1)1 II III
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH
II I I II III I I I II I I IIIII III III
I I III I I I III I 11 Illllll l(
IIIH^
I1! 'i niiii I iiiiiii
11 Illllll Illllll 111 ill IIH^ III ill Illllllllll 11
Illllll I (i 111 Illllll 11 ill 111 Illllll 111 III 111 HI 11 111 111 I"! PI 1III Hit
Illllllllll 111
Ill Illllllllllllll III Illlllllllllllllllll
I
iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii n in 1 iliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliili i iiiiiii mi mi iiiiiiiilliili nil in iiiiiii i ii in i i in i
-------
VI.
COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
175113 Planning Study
Snow Hill, Maryland to Delaware State Line
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
-------
-------
US 113 Planning Study
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Agency coordination for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) document was conducted
throughout the study. Chapters of the DEIS Were submitted to the environmental resource agencies for review
and comments prior to finalizing the document. This section includes a compilation of correspondence with
agencies, public groups, and elected officials.
Elected Officials Correspondence
VI-1 Wayne T. Gilchrest, United States House of Representatives (from SHA)
VI-2 Barbara A. Mikulski, United States Senator (to SHA)
VI-4 James G. Barrett, Worcester County Commissioner (from SHA)
VI-6 Bennett Bozman, Worcester County House Delegation (from SHA)
VI-8 J. Lowell Stoltzfus, Worcester County Senate Delegation (from SHA)
VI-10 J. Lowell Stoltzfus, Worcester County Senate Delegation (to SHA)
VI-11 James G. Barrett, Worcester County Commissioner (to SHA)
VI-12 J. Lowell Stoltzfus, Worcester County Senate Delegation (from SHA)
VI-13 James G. Barrett, Worcester County Commissioner (from SHA)
VI-14 Barbara A. Mikulski, United States Senator (from SHA)
VI-15 Wayne T. Gilchrest, United States House of Representatives (from SHA)
VI-17 James G. Barrett, Worcester County Commissioner (to SHA)
VI-18 James G. Barrett, Worcester County Commissioner (from SHA)
Public Involvement
VI-19 Summary of comments from the Alternates Public Workshop
VI-20 Meeting with CRASH Citizens Group; Minutes (from SHA)
VI-28 Friendship Community Association (to SHA)
VI-35 Friendship Community Association (from SHA)
VI-38 Letter to area churches; Environmental Justice Coordination (from SHA)
VI-48 Letter to Robert Hulburd, CRASH Citizens Group (from SHA)
VI-49 Letter to Worcester County Office of Emergency Services
VI-50 Meeting with the Friendship Community Association
Vl-51a Ocean Pines Association, Inc.
Vl-51c Worcester County Commission for Women
NEPA/404 Coordination
Comments and Concurrence on Purpose and Need
VI-52 Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence (from SHA)
VI-53 Environmental Protection Agency comments (to SHA)
VI-55 Environmental Protection Agency response to comments (from SHA)
VI-61 Environmental Protection Agency comments (to SHA)
VI-63 Environmental Protection Agency response to comments (from SHA)
VI-68 Environmental Protection Agency comments (to SHA)
VI-69 Environmental Protection Agency Concurrence (to SHA)
VI-71 Corps of Engineers comments (to SHA)
VI-73 Corps of Engineers response to comments (from SHA)
VI-78 Corps of Engineers comments (to SHA)
VI-80 Corps of Engineers response to comments (from SHA)
VI-84 Corps of Engineers Concurrence (to SHA)
November 1,1994
August 27,1996
November 20,1996
November 20,1996
November 20,1996
November 27, 1996
December 9,1996
December 26,1996
December 31, 1996
January 21,1996
February 21,1997
March 25, 1997
April 4, 1997
November 30,1995
March 8, 1995
February 2, 1997
February 28,1997
February 12,1997
February 24, 1997'
April 10,1997
April 15,1997
April 2, 1997
Aprils, 1997
February 4,1997
December 14,1995
March 5,1996
May 2,1996
June 17,1996
August 26,1996
September 5,1996
December 15,1997
March 5, 1996
April 22,1996
June 17,1996
July 9,1996
VI-1
-------
US 113 Planning Study
VI-87 Maryland Department of Natural Resources comments (to SHA)
Vl-89 Maryland Office of Planning comments (to SHA)
VI-91 National Park Service comments (to SHA)
VI-93 Maryland Historical Trust comments (to SHA)
VI-94 Department of Natural Resources natural habitats (to SHA)
Comments and Concurrence on Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study
VI-96 Fish and Wildlife Service comments (to SHA)
VI-98 Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence (to SHA)
VI-99 Fish and Wildlife Service response to comments (from SHA)
VI-101 Environmental Protection Agency comments (to SHA)
VI-103 Environmental Protection Agency response to comments (from SHA)
Vl-105a Environmental Protection Agency concurrence (to SHA)
VI-106 Corps of Engineers comments (to SHA)
VI-1 08 Corps of Engineers response to comments (from SHA)
VI-1 1 1 Corps of Engineers concurrence (to SHA)
VI-1 1 3 Maryland Department of Natural Resources concurrence (to SHA)
VI-1 1 5 Maryland Office of Planning comments (to SHA)
VI-1 1 7 Maryland Office of Planning response to comments (from SHA)
VI-1 31 Maryland Department of the Environment concurrence (to SHA)
VI-1 32 Maryland Department of the Environment concurrence update (to SHA)
VI-1 35 National Marine Fisheries Service comments (to SHA)
VI-1 36 National Marine Fisheries Service response to comments (from SHA)
Vl-141 National Marine Fisheries Service concurrence (to SHA)
VI-1 44 Maryland Historical Trust comments (to SHA)
Other NEPA/404 Coordination
VI-1 46 Minutes from Agency Field Review
VI-1 58 Invitations to Agency Field Review
Vl-170 February 27, 1 997 Wetland Jurisdictional Review Minutes
VI-173 October 29 to 31 , 1 996 Wetland Jurisdictional Review Minutes
VI-1 77 December 11,1 996 Wetland Jurisdictional Review Minutes
VI-1 79 November 26 and 27, 1 996 Wetland Jurisdictional Review Minutes
VI-1 82 January 22 and 23, 1 997 Wetland Jurisdictional Review Minutes
VI-188a March 20, 27, 28, 1997 Wetland Jurisdictional Review Minutes
VI-1 89 Fish and Wildlife Service natural habitats (to SHA)
VI-1 90 Maryland Historical Trust (from SHA)
Vl-1 91 Maryland Department of the Environment (from SHA)
VI-1 92 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (from SHA)
VI-1 93 Maryland Office of Planning (from SHA)
VI-1 94 May 1 7, 1 995 Interagency Review Meeting Minutes
VI-21 1 September 1 8, 1 996 Interagency Review Meeting Minutes
VI-228 February 1 9, 1 997 Interagency Review Meeting Minutes
VI-251 March 19, 1997 Interagency Review Meeting Minutes
Vl-256 March 25, 1997 Interagency Review Meeting Minutes
December 11,1 995
December 7, 1995
June 2, 1995
November 30, 1995
February 12, 1996
January 28, 1 997
February 4, 1 997
February 27, 1997
January 31, 1997
February 24, 1997
March 31, 1997
January 23, 1997
February 25, 1997
April 11, 1997
November 21, 1996
November 20, 1 996
February 20, 1 997
March 14, 1997
March 27, 1997
November 25, 1 996
December 23, 1996
March 31, 1997
November 15, 1996
August 3 & 4, 1995
July 24, 1995
April 26, 1995
February 21, 1997
February 21, 1997
February 21 , 1 997
February 21, 1997
VI-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
VI-259 Corps of Engineers (Cooperating Agency)
Other Agency Correspondence
VI-260
VI-261
VI-262
VI-264
VI-266
VI-269
VI-277
VI-278
VI-280
VI-282
VI-284
Vl-292a
VI-293
VI-295
VI-296
VI-297
VI-300
VI-302
Maryland Historical Trust concurrence (to SHA)
Maryland Historical Trust concurrence (to SHA)
Maryland Historical Trust comments (to SHA)
Maryland Historical Trust report transmittal (from SHA)
Maryland Historical Trust comments (to SHA)
Maryland Historical Trust comments (to SHA)
Maryland Historical Trust report transmittal (from SHA)
Maryland Historical .Trust comments (to SHA)
Maryland Historical Trust comments (to SHA)
Maryland Historical Trust comments (to SHA)
Maryland Historical Trust comments & concurrence (to SHA)
Maryland Historical Trust comments & concurrence (to SHA)
Department of Natural Resources natural habitats (to SHA)
Department of Natural Resources natural habitats (to SHA)
Department of Natural Resources natural habitats (to SHA)
Department of Natural Resources natural habitats (to SHA)
Department of Natural Resources natural habitats (to SHA)
Department of Natural Resources natural habitats (to SHA)
VI-304 Maryland Department of the Environment (to SHA)
VI-305 US Department of Agriculture - Farmland Conversion Impacts
ApriMO, 1997
June 14,1990
Novembers, 1990
Decembers, 1990
July 26,1995
March 12, 1996
ApriMO, 1996
JulyS, 1996
July 18, 1996
January 7,1997
March 6, 1997
March 18,1997
April 23, 1997
July 6, 1989
January 17, 1990
April 25, 1995
May 9, 1995
June 3, 1996
JulyS, 1996
March 21, 1997
April 16, 1997
VI-3
-------
-------
Elected Officials Correspondence
US 113 Planning Study
-------
ill (ill iiiiiii iiiiiiiiH ill iiiiliiliiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii 1111 ill i ii 111 11 in 1 ii 11 111 i in i in 1 111 i ill linn iiiiiii in i in iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii i in n in I
Illlllllllll^
Ill IIIIIII III A^ 111 IIIIIIM 111 111 Illllllllll 1111IIIIIIM^ II IIIIIII l|l||lllll| 11 IIIIIII 111 11111 III I 11II 111 111 III 111 IIIIIII 11 HI 11II II1 111 M III III IIIIIII 111111 III I III illllllll I II
I III
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
The Secretary's Office
November 1, 1994
William DonalB Sctwefer
Governor
O. James LJghthlzer
Secretary
Thomas L. Osbome
Deputy Secretary
The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest
United States House of Representatives
412 Cannon House Office Building
Washington DC 20515-2001
Dear Congressman Gilchrest:
Thank you for your recent letter concerning the safety issues on US 113 in Worcester
County. We appreciate your constituents' concerns on this issue as well as your own
commitment to highway safety.
I am pleased to inform you that the State Highway Administration (SHA) will be working
closely with a community task force to evaluate short-term safety improvements that could be
quickly implemented on US 113, from Snow Hill to the Delaware state line.
We will also reactivate planning studies for improving US 113. The study will be added to
the Development and Evaluation portion of the Draft 1995-2000 Consolidated Transportation
Program. The study will examine engineering feasibility, community impacts and environ-
mental issues for long-term options, especially widening along the existing alignment.
State Highway Administrator Hal Kassoff and his staff are planning to meet with representa-
tives of the task force to discuss these proposals further on November 9, 1994. While we
can implement low-cost interim safety improvements that come out of our studies, we will
not be able to proceed beyond studies for the dualization of US 113 without new transporta-
tion revenues. I would greatly appreciate any assistance you can provide in securing
additional funds, beyond our normal formula allocations, to fund improvements in the
US 113 corridor.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me. If you have any questions, please feel
free to call me or Mr. Kassoff, who can be reached at (410) 333-1111.
Secretary
cc: Mr. Hal Kassoff
VI- 1
My tefephoM number is (410V
859-7600
TTY For the Deaf: (410) 684-6919
Post Office Box 8755. Baltimore/Washington International Airport. Maryland 21240-0755
-------
STATE OF MARYLAND
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
August 27, 1996
PAIW1SM.6L
4NNAPC
ST
tOOST
ANNAPOUS.UAHY
WASHING:
444 NORTH CfffTOLf
WASHINGTON
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senate
Suite IE, Building B TOO*
1201 Pemberton Drive
Salisbury MD 21801-2403
Dear Barbara:
Thank you for your recent letter expressing concerns about US 113. I would like to
take this opportunity to respond to the three questions you raised. Let me begin with what
has been accomplished in the past and a status of our current activities.
The State Highway Administration (SHA) has made a number of improvements to
US 113 between US 13 and the Delaware state line over the last 10 years. It has completed
major intersection improvements along US 113 at US 13, MD 610, MD 589, Pitts Road, am
the Delaware state line. The SHA has also installed 15 street lights and five flasher signals,
and has made numerous spot safety improvements, including widening the painted lines
which separate northbound from southbound traffic, installing raised pavement markers,
adding pavement marking arrows, and adding "no passing" signs. In addition, SHA also
resurfaced approximately 80 percent of US 113 in this area. These improvements (most of
which were made during the last five years) cost approximately $12 million.
The US 113 project is included in the Department's Consolidated Transportation
Program for project development. We are evaluating a variety of alternatives including the
construction of an additional two-lane roadway adjacent to the existing facility and a new
four-lane road on new location for the section between Berlin and the Delaware state line.
The cost of dualizing the entire length of US 113 would likely exceed $100 million. We
anticipate holding a public hearing in the Spring of 1997 and expect completion of the
analysis later in the year.
Traffic and accident studies were done in the late 1980f s when a project planning
study was initiated for US 113 from US 50 to the Delaware state line. The traffic and
accident data was updated last year when we began the project development effort mentioned
above. The entire section of US 113 has experienced 893 accidents in the past 15 years. Or
average this rate is lower than other similar roadways. The northern section has experienced
20 fatalities over that period of time which is cause for concern and is the primary focus of
our present project development efforts.
VI-2
Tf
-------
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Page Two
We would certainly prefer to be able to make an early commitment to the construction
of a project such as the dualization of US 113, but given the limits on both federal as well as
state transportation funding, we have not been able to do so at this time. As you are well
aware, Congress has not readily agreed to federal funding for highway projects in addition to
that provided through normal federal funding apportionments. In the coming year, as we
approach the re-authorization of the federal surface transportation programs, we will want to
work closely with you and other members of the Maryland Congressional delegation. We
hope to obtain the highest possible funding formula for Maryland, enabling us to undertake
projects such as US 113 as well as special categories of projects such as federally owned
highways like the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and the Baltimore Washington Parkway.
Thank you for your interest in the US 113 project. If you have any other questions
or comments, please feel free to call me or State Highway Administrator Parker Williams at
(410)545-0400. .
Sincerely,
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
Enclosure
cc:
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Department of Transportation
The Honorable James G. Barrett
The Honorable Bennett Bozman
Mr. Parker Williams
VI-3
-------
Msryl&idDepartment of Tfsnspcrtaticfi
State Highway Administration
David L Win
Secretar/
Parker F.Wil
Administrator
November 20, 1996
The Honorable lames Barrett
President
Worcester .County Commissioners
Courthouse
SnowHfllMD 21863
»
Dear Commissioner Barrett:
The State Highway Administration (SHA) has completed initial project planning
studies for the proposed dualization of US 113 from Snow Hill to the Delaware State line.
Proposed alternatives include dualizing US 113 along the existing roadway and the
construction of US 113 on a new location.
During the initial planning stage, alternative proposals were developed and an
environmental inventory of the area was completed to identify social, economic, natural and
cultural resources. These resources were considered during the development of the
alternatives.
On November 30, 1995, an Alternates Public Workshop was held'at Berlin Middle
School to present the findings of the conceptual engineering and of the preliminary natural
and cultural environmental and socio-economic studies. A copy of the brochure distributed
for the meeting is enclosed.
An environmental document will be prepared describing each alternative and its
potential impacts. The document will be circulated and made available to the public. A
public hearing will be held following the publication of the environmental document. We
request the Worcester County Commissioners' concurrence to proceed to final project
planning for the US 113 Study.
My telephone number b :
Maryland Relay Service lor Impaired Hearing or Speech
l-aOO-735-2258 Statewide, Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Addnss: 707 North Calvart Strwt • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
VI-4
-------
The Honorable James Barren
Page Two
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me or Mr. Neil
Pedersen, our Director of Planning and Preliminary Engineering, who can be reached at
(410) 545-0411.
Parker F. Williams
^ . ." ; Administrator
*
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director, State Highway Administration
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Maryland Department of
Transportation
VI-5
-------
Maryland Department oiTransportation
State Highway Administration
David LWir
Secretary
Parker F.Wi
Administrator
November 20,1996
The Honorable Bennett Bozman
Chairperson
Worcester County House Delegation
413 Lowe House Office Building
6 Governor Bladen Boulevard
Annapolis MD 21401-1991
Dear Delegate Bozman:
The State Highway Administration (SHA) has completed initial project planning
studies for the proposed dualization of US 113 from Snow Hill to the Delaware State line.
Proposed alternatives include dualizing US 113 along the existing roadway and the
construction of US 113 on a new location.
During the initial planning stage, alternative proposals were developed and an
environmental inventory of the area was completed to identify social, economic, natural and
cultural resources. These resources were considered during the development of die
alternatives.
On November 30, 1995, an Alternates Public Workshop was held at Berlin Middle
School to present the findings of the conceptual engineering and of the preliminary natural
and cultural environmental and socio-economic studies. A copy of die brochure distributed
for the meeting is enclosed.
An environmental document will be prepared describing each alternative and its
potential impacts. The document will be circulated and made available to the public. A
public hearing will be held following the publication of the environmental document. We
request your concurrence to proceed to final project planning for the US 113 study.
VI-6
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay San/fca tor Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide, ToB Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MO
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
The Honorable Bennett Bozman
Page Two '
JSincereU,
Enclosure
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
Director' State Highway Administrarion
Wfa"Md> Secrelaiy. Maryland Department of
VI-7
-------
Mar/tendDepartmentofTran$pcrtation
State Highway Administration
David LWii
Secretary
Parker F.W
Administrator
November 20, 1996
The Honorable I. Lowell Stoltzfus
Chairperson
Worcester County Senate Delegation
30487 Broad Street
Princess Anne MD 21853-1211
Dear Senator Stoltzfus:
the State Highway Administration (SHA) has completed initial project planning
studies for the proposed dualization of US 113 from Snow Hill to the Delaware State line.
Proposed alternatives include dualizing US 113 along the existing roadway and the
construction of US 113 on a new location.
During the initial planning stage, alternative proposals were developed and an
environmental inventory of the area was completed to identify social, economic, natural and
cultural resources. These resources were considered during the development of the
alternatives.
On November 30, 1995, an Alternates Public Workshop was held at Berlin Middle
School to present the findings of the conceptual engineering and of the preliminary natural
and cultural environmental and socio-economic studies. A copy of the brochure distributed
for the meeting is enclosed.
An environmental document will be prepared describing each alternative and its
potential impacts. The document will be circulated and made available to the public. A
public hearing will be held following the publication of the environmental document. We
request your concurrence to proceed to final project planning for the US 113 study.
My telephone number is .
Maryland Relay Service tor Impaired Hearing or Speech
1 -800-735-2258 Statewide. Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717 ,
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
VI-8
-------
The Honorable J. Loweil Stofcz&s
Page Two
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me or Mr. Neil
(410)^545 (*60"* °f Plannins and ^liminaiy Engineering, who can be reached at
/
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
Enclosure *
cc: Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director, State Highway Administration
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Maryland Department of
Transportation
r
V/-9
-------
J. L.OWEU.STOL.TZFUS
DISTRICT 3 •
SOMERSET. WltfOMICO ft WORCESTER
MCMDERl
ECONOMIC * ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE
' CHESAPEAKE »AY CRITICAL AREAS
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
JOINTCOMMITTEE
ON FEOERAUREUATIONS
COMMISSION TO «AVETHE UOHTHOOSES
GOVERNOR'S PESTICIDE COUNCIL.
LEGISLATtve OFFICE
ROOM 4O» SENATE OFFICE BU
ANNAFOUS. MAdVLANO ZI4O
SENATE OF MARYLAND
AHMAPOLIS. MARYLAND 2UOI-1991
November 27, 1996
DISTRICT OFFICES
3O4I7 BROAD STREET
PRINCESS ANNE. MARVtANO X.
|4IO17«2-39»»
Parker F. Williams, Administrator
Maryland Department of "Transportation-
State Highway Administration
p. O. Box 717
Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Dear Parker:
Thus Maryland's portion is the bottleneck
If I can be of further assistance in this fine project, please feel
free to contact me.
Sincerely,
J. Lowell Stoltzfus
JLS:ro
cc: Worcester County Commissioners
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen
Secretary David L. Winstead
VI- 10
-------
.10-632-1194
COMMISSIONERS
JAMES a BARRETT. PRESIDENT
ANV1LLE 0. TRIMPER VCSPflesoexT
ROBERT t_ COWQER. JR.
JEANNE LYNCH
JAMES L PURNELL
OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
(Emmtg
&
GERALD T. MASON
ff AOWNOTWnvf OFFICER
EDWARD H. HAMMOND, JB.
ROOM t18 COURTHOUSE
ONE WEST MARKET STREET
SNOW HILL, MARYLAND
21863-1072
December 9, 1996
Parker F. Williams, Administrator
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
Post Office Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
RE: Concurrence to Proceed to Final Project Planning - U.S. 113 Study
Dear Mr. Williams:
Please be advised mat at our meeting of December 3,1996, the Worcester County
Commissioners reviewed your letter of November 20,1996 regarding the status of the proposed
dualization of U.S. Route 113 fiom Snow Hill to the Delaware State Line. As you are aware, we have
identified this project as a priority and are therefore encouraged by the progress in accomplishing these
much needed improvements to insure the safety and to protect the lives of the residents and visitors of
Worcester County. We therefore offer our concurrence to proceed to final project planning for the U.S.
113 study.
We would appreciate your continued efforts in expediting this project and hope that you will
strive to begin construction of these critically necessary improvements as quickly as possible. Please do
not hesitate to contact us if we can be of any assistance in mis matter.
If you should have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to contact either me or
Gerald T. Mason, Chief Administrative Officer, at this office.
Sincerely,
JGB/KS;ddc
eft Secretly D*vM L. Wlnstead, MOOT
Neil Pedersen. Director. SHA
Donnfe Drewer, District Engineer, SHA
' Bob Hulburd, CRASH
CC12S/Pirker
VI- 11
Citizens and Government Working Together
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David LV
Secretary
Parker F. \
Administrate
December 26, 1996
Th.e Honorable J. Lowell Stoltzfus
Senate of Maryland
30487 Broad Street
Princess Anne MD 21853-1211
Dear Senator Stoltzfus:
^ Thank you for your recent letter supporting our efforts to proceed with final project
planning for the US 113 project. We are also concerned about the accident fatality rate
along this route. Since our transportation tour meeting, I met with the County Residents
Action for Safer Highways (CRASH) on December 16 to discuss the project. I am pleased
to tell you that we are planning to go to a Location/Design Public Hearing by Spring 1997.
Your interest in this project is appreciated. If you have any questions, please feel
free to call me or Mr. Neil Pedersen, our Director of Planning and Preliminary Engineering,
who can be reached at (410) 545-0411.
Sincerely,
/ .,-*"'
. ,,
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
cc:
The Honorable James Barrett, President, Worcester County Commissioners
The Honorable Robert Cowger, Jr., Commissioner, Worcester County
The Honorable Jeanne Lynch, Commissioner, Worcester County
The Honorable James Purnell, Commissioner, Worcester County
The Honorable Granville'Trimper, Vice President, Worcester County
Commissioners
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director, State Highway Administration
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service tor Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
c.^- P-°- Box717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
VI- 12
-------
Mary/and Department of Transportation
Sta te High way A dministra tfon
David L Winstead
Secretary
Parker F.Williams
Administrator
December 31, 1996
The Honorable James G. Barrett, President
Worcester County- Commissioners
Room 112 Court House
One West Market Street
Snow Hill MD 21863-1072
Dear Commissioner Barrett:
Thank you for your recent letter providing concurrence to proceed to final project
planning for US 113 from Snow Hill to the Delaware State line. Safety along this route is a
major concern to us as well.
Since our transportation tour meeting, I met with the County Residents Action for
Safer Highways (CRASH) on December 16 to discuss the project I am pleased to tell you
that we are expediting the planning studies and will proceed directly to engineering as sooa
as an alternative is, selected.
Your continued support and interest in this project is appreciated. If you have any
questions, please feel free to call me or Mr. Neil Pedersen, our Director of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering, who may be reached at (410) 545-0411.
cc:
F.Williams
Administrator
Mr. Robert Hulburd, CRASH
The Honorable Robert Cowger, Jr., Commissioner, Worcester County
The Honorable Jeanne Lynch, Commissioner, Worcester County
The Honorable James Purnell, Commissioner, Worcester County
The Honorable Granvffle Trimper, Vice President, Worcester County Commissioners
Mr. Donnie Drewer, District Engineer, State Highway Administration
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director, State Highway Administration
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Maryland Department of
Transportation
VI-13
My telephone number fa
Maryland Relay Service tor Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide ToD Free
.. Mailing Address; P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MO 21203-0717
s*'Mt Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
•i
-------
Mary/andDepartmentofTransportatlon
State Highway Administration
DavfdLWi
Secretary
Parker F.W
Administrator
January 21, 1997
i
The Honorable Barbara Mikulski
United States Senate
World Trade Center
Suite 253
401 East Pratt Street
Baltimore MD 21202
Dear Senator Mikulski:
Mrs. Sue Rajan of my staff informs me your office recently inquired about
113 dualization project in Worcester County. Apparently, at a recent meeting in Worcester
County, Mr. Bob Hulburd of CRASH (County Residents Action for Safer Highways)
expressed his concerns about the amount of time it is taking for the Federal agenaes to
complete the environmental review for the project.
Reviewing the routine, detailed, environmental analyses and documentation, and
coordinating with the various State and Federal agencies, is a lengthy process. We are
closely coordinating the project with the agencies and making them aware of the current
safety• prttau along US 113, in order to avoid any delay during the course of planning an
design. At this stage, none of the agencies is causing a delay in the issuance of
environmental permits.
This project has been placed on an accelerated schedule through theproject planning
phase. We intend to hold a Location/Design Public Hearing this Spring. The next phase,
project engineering or final design, is also funded in our program, and theprojec twffl.
proceed directly to enguieering as soon as an alternative is selected. In order to save time,
design preliminaries will begin sooner.
Your staff also asked us to notify you of any Federal agencies' delaying any permit <
approval for this project We appreciate your concerns and support for the US 113Jjrpject.
Kyou have any questions, pleasVfeel free to call me or Mr. Ned Pederseri our Director of
Planning and Preliminary Engineering, who can-be-reached at (410) 545-0411.
cc:
F. Williams
Administrator
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director, State Highway Administration
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Maryland Department of
Transportation
—VI- 14
Maryland Relay Sen/tea for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1 -800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
February 21, 1997
The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest
United States House of Representatives
332 Cannon House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
Dear Congressman Gilchrest:
This is an update on our project planning activities on US 113 in Worcester County.
The team is preparing the draft Environmental Impact Statement, which we expect will be
circulated and available for public and agency inspection in late April. The Public Hearing
is tentatively scheduled for May 29.
The US 113 schedule has been condensed and expedited in order to obtain the
necessary federal approvals as quickly as possible. Maintaining that schedule will require the
federal review agencies to assign a high priority to the project and review all submitted
information rapidly.
You requested the names, addresses and phone numbers of key people at the federal
agencies whom you may want to contact to let them know of your interest in the project and
the priority you would like to see them place on it. These people are:
Mrs. Susan J. Binder
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
The Rotunda, Suite 220
711 West 40th Street
Baltimore MD 21211
(410) 962-4440
t
Colonel Randall Inouye
Commander
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Baltimore District
Baltimore MD 21203-1715
(410) 962-6144
VI- 15
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
The Honorable Wayne Gilchrest
February 21, 1997
Page Two
Mr. Michael McCabe
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region in
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia PA 19107
(215) 597-8255
Mr. John Wolflin
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Annapolis MD 21401
(410) 573-4534
Mr. Timothy E. Goodger
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat and Protection Resource Division
Oxford MD 21654
(410) 226-5771
Your interest in this project is greatly appreciated. If you need any additional
information, please feel free to call me at (410) 545-0400.
Sincerely,,
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
V/-16
-------
IflR 26 '37 03:48PM SHfl flDMINISTRATOR 410 333 1585
P. 2/2
COMMISSIONERS
; 6. BABfiETT,
10. TRIMMER, VWi Pf lEfflDENT
aSBTLCOWaERJR.
JEANNE LYNCH
JAMES L PURNEU.
Office OF TUB
COUNTY COUh8SSK>NeH3
1$force*ter Cotottg
c^ s
BOOM 11 J
ONI WSST MARKET iTREET
SNOW HILL, MARYLAND
21863-1072
March 25, 1997
. aERALDT. MASON
CHEF ABM1NISTMTIW E gWBCT
iDWAMO H. HAMMOND, JR.
COUNTY ATiallNgY
Parker Williams, Administrator
State High* -ay Administration
707 N.Calvert Street
Baltimore, M-.ryland 21202
RE: Relocation of U. S. Route 1 13
Dear Mr. Williams:
The Worcester County Commissioners recently received the status report dated February 25,
1997 regaraJng pm^ed improvements to U. S. Route 113 in Worcester County from sotrth of Snow Bdl
to Ae Delaware State Line. We are encouraged by the recent activities to further this much needed
pr qfe£ id are grateful for your efforts in this regard. We understand that you are currently in Ae
process of evaluating several alternatives for the location of these improvements and are attempting**
deS* the alignment which wilt provide for the least possible disturbance to the environmi-nt While
w^mmend yoifor this effort, we ask that you also consider the impact of these vanous ahgments on
Jne buuSnment in order to provide for the least possible disturbance of the residents of Worcester
County, as fans recently come to light in the Friendship area.
Again, thank you for your efforts in moving this project forward on an •^Jj*.
look forward*, the upcoming Location^esign Public Hearing which is berng scheduled for S.xnng 9
^StheselectioVofafLl alternative for th. location brthe^improyementeonU S.R>ute 113.
5 we«n be of any assistance, please feel free to contact either me or Gerald T. Mason, Chief
Administrative Officer, at this office.
JGB/KSx >i;
Donnle Jrewcr, District Engineer, SHA
Mr*. R, SuweURjjM, Project MinigM, SHA
CC12S/WIU' -at
VI-17
Citizens and Coverna^nt Working Together
• •0 ~-
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Wins
Secretary
Parker F. Will
Administrator
April 4, 1997
•A
The Honorable James G. Barrett
President
Worcester County Commissioners Office
Room 112 Courthouse
One West Market Street
Snow Hill MD 21863-1072
Dear Commissioner Barrett:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the US 113 project. I know this project is
of great concern to the citizens of Worcester County and the State Highway Administration i
actively working towards a construction start.
As part of our process, the effects to existing neighborhoods and residents is most
definitely a consideration in our evaluation of alternatives. Last month the project team met
with the citizens of the Friendship area to explain the process and gain a first-hand
understanding of the community's concerns. Our understanding is that the community feels
it is unreasonable to implement improvements along the existing road as it would result in
displacement of a number of residences and disturb the character of the community.
Several alternatives are being considered in the area of the Friendship community. I
can assure you that impacts to the community will be given serious consideration in the
decision making process.
Again, thank you for your interest in our project. If you have any questions, please
feel free to call me or Mr. -Neil J. Pedersen, the Director of the Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering, who can be reached at (410) 545-0411.
cc:
Parker F. Williams
Administrator .
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director, Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering,
State Highway Administration
VI-18
My telephone number is —
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1 -800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
US 113 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
ALTERNATES PUBLIC WORKSHOP
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
A total of 42 comments were received from mailers, letters, and citizens at wall
displays.
In general, almost all comments agreed that further improvements are needed
throughout, and almost half were in favor of a relocated US 113, in the northern
study area. :
Nine people were in favor of dualizing US 113, with no preferred alternative.
Two people were against dualizing US 113.
At the northern end of the project, 16 people were in favor of relocating US 113.
Two people were in favor of widening US 113, specifically on it's current location.
Several people would like to see the speed limit reduced on US 113.
Several people would like to see the project move along quickly.
Several people strongly agreed that further spot improvements are needed.
NOTE: Most are in regard to Jarvis Road's design, which has been
identified as a problem and will be addressed at the district level,
when funding is available.
VI-19
-------
SYNOPSIS OF MEETING
CONTRACT WO-719-201-177
A meeting was held on March 8, 1995 with the citizens group "County
Residents Advocating Safer Highways" (CRASH). The following were in
attendance:
Terry McGean
Jeff Kelchner
Dale Petty
Frank Kellogg
Jim Barrett
Tony Kanz
Bob Hulburd
Louise Ash
Jack Lord
Sonny Bloxom
Sean O'Sullivan
Mike Rothenheber
Jim Renaud
Dan Uebersax
Steve Udzinski
Lee Carrigan
Rudy A. Walbe
Raja Veeramachaneni
Donnie L Drewer
Glenn L Evans
Ravi D. Ganvir
Gene Cofieil
Ocean City Engineer 289-8221
Ocean City Police Dept. 723-6631
Maryland State Police 641 -2101
CRASH 641-5248
CRASH 641-2798
CRASH 641 -8071
CRASH 641 -5300
CRASH 632-2600
CRASH 352-9867
Wor. County Commissioner 957-0132
The Daily Times 749-7171
J.M.T. Consultants 329-3100
J.M.T. Consultants 329-3100
SHA Environmental Design 333-8080
SHA Highway Design 333-1275
SHA Planning 333-4582
SHA Planning 333-4583
SHA Hydraulics 333-1274
SI-iA District Engineer 543-6720
SHA ADE-Construction 543-6715
SHA Engineering Systems 543-6715
SHA District 1 Traffic 543-6715
Donnie Drewer briefly expanded on the purpose of the meeting to keep
CRASH Committee members updated on the results of our studies of MD
90 and US 113, what we can do right away, and what we plan to do in
the future.
VI-20
-------
CRASH Synopsis
March 8, 1995
Page 2
Gene Cofiell reviewed immediate improvement plans to the MD 90
Corridor as follows:
= Install flex post delineators along the centerline of
MD 90 from US 50 East for approximately 1/4 mile.
To be completed in Spring of '95.
= Install Overhead sign just east of US 50 that warns
motorists that there is a two-way traffic for the next
12 miles.
To be completed by Memorial Day weekend.
= Install five signs at strategic locations for
eastbound traffic with detectors and flashing lights
for the purpose of warning motorists of backups
ahead. _ _
To be completed by Memorial Day weekend.
= Place "No Passing" pennant signs independently
along the entire corridor.
Completed.
= Remove ail unnecessary signs on MD 90 at MD
'. 528.
Completed.
m Modify the overhead sign approaching MD 528.
To be completed by Memorial Day weekend.
VI-21
-------
CRASH Synopsis
March 8, 1995
PageS
Mike Rothenheber of Johnson, Mirmiran, and Thompson, consultants
performing the study, gave a brief presentation of the results of their
studies. Engineering, environmental, cost restraints, and accident data
over the last 15 years were all, by necessity, considered in the final
recommendations. They were as follows:
• Break MD 90 down into 6 segments:
1. From MD 528 to beginning of Assawoman Bay
Bridge (0.45 miles).
2. From Assawoman Bay Bridge to end of St. Martins
River Bridge. This segment is considered as two
parts. The first part is the Isle of Wight (0.73)
and the second part is the two bridges (2.22 miles).
3. From end of St. Martins River Bridge up to and including
the interchange with MD 528 (2.41 miles).
4. From the interchange with MD 589 up to and including the
interchange of US 113 (1.57 miles).
5. From the interchange with US 113 up to the MD 346
Overpass (2.94 miles).
6. From MD 346 Overpass to the US 50 interchange
(1.03 miles).
Mike presented two typicals for the recommended proposed construction
of a median down the middle of MD 90 in which guardrail would be
installed (Segment 2):
Typical 4. Eleven foot wide lanes with six foot wide outside
shoulders, two foot wide inside shoulders with a sixteen foot
wide median with a guardrail.
Typical 2. Eleven foot wide lanes with six foot wide outside
shoulders and an eight foot wide median with a guardrail.
Mike presented drawings of both of the typicals with a colored raised
median, brown steel guardrail, and possibly some landscaping, both very
aesthetic. V|- 22
-------
CRASH Synopsis
March 8, 1995
Page 4
Segment 2 is scheduled to begin in October, '95 with an anticipated
completion date prior to the following tourist season, depending on
available funding.
The remainder of MD 90 is anticipated to be completed one segment per
year beginning with Segment 3 and proceeding west, providing funding
is available.
SUMMATION:
Members very pleased with presentation. For Segment 2, they preferred
Typical 4. They did, however, feel that 6 or 7 years was a long time to
correct a problem 12 miles long, and suggested they may contact their
elected officials and lobby for additional monies to accelerate
completion.
VI-23
-------
CRASH Synopsis
March 8, 1995
PageS
US 113
Ravi Ganvir reviewed improvements SHA has made to US 113, improve-
ments in process, and improvements to be made within the next 6 to 9
months (depending upon availability of funding) as follows:
IMPROVEMENTS COMPLETED
US 113 AT MD 610
m Widen existing pavement to provide left turn lanes
atNBLandSBLofUS113.
s Construct right turn lanes at MD 610.
m Construct traffic signal.
US 113 AT PITTS ROAD
m Widen "Pitts Road to "provide right turn at US 113.
US 113 AT MD 589
m Widen US 113 to provide acceleration and
deceleration lanes.
• Construct traffic signal at the intersection.
US 113
Install wide paint lines (12" center, 8" edge lines).
IMPROVEMENTS IN PROGRESS
m Install Raised Pavement Markers from Pocomoke
to Delaware State Line.
To be completed Spring, '95.
m Pavement Marking arrows and two-way traffic
signs at every mile.
To be completed Spring, '95.
VI-24
-------
CRASH Synopsis
March 8, 1995
Page 6
Improvements In Progress (Continued)
a No passing pennants mounted independently of
other signs.
To be completed Spring, '95.
tf •
a Delaware Line bridge end markers.
To be completed Spring, '95.
a Install new flasher at US 113 and Pitts Road.
Design in progress.
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN 6 - 9 MONTHS
(Contingent upon Funding)
s Install flashers at the intersections of MD 365,
Castle Hill Road, Washington Street; MD 394,
Langmaid Road, and Germantown Road.
Install street lights at the intersections of
Cedartown Road, Porters Crossing Road, Five Mile
Branch Road, Basket Switch Road, Newark Road,
Cropper Island Road, Downs Road, Good Hill
Road, Shire Drive, Mason Road, Ironshire Stations
Road, Harrison Road, Hayes Landing Road, MD
394, Langmaid Road, and Germantown Road.
Signing improvements are to be made at
intersection with MD 394.
Ravi gave brief presentation of SHA future improvement plans (within two
years) for intersections of US 1 1 3 and MD 367, MD 452, Jarvis Road,
Deer Park Road, and Kary Asphalt entrance. He stressed that these
improvements are contingent upon funding availability.
VI- 25
-------
CRASH Synopsis
March 8,1995
Page?
Lee Carrigan advised project planning studies to improve US 113 safety
and serviceability were initiated in January of this year. Project limits are
from the Delaware State line to south of Snow Hill. Only the planning
phase has been funded. There are major wetland areas within the
project limits. Preliminary cost for the ultimate dualization ranges from
$120 to $150 million. It is anticipated a public hearing presenting the
alternates will be held in the Fall, '95 with location/design approvals
being given in the Spring of '97.
Again, members were pleased with presentation and expressed their
appreciation for the work put into the presentation. The Committee
commented that US 113 was being used as an alternate route for trucks
to get around the scales on US 1 3, mostly Sunday afternoons and nights.
Also questioned the possibility of the speed limit on the Snow Hill Bypass
being reduced. They voiced concerns for the following:
m US 1 1 3 at intersection of MD 61 0 - vehicles
passing on left southbound lane. New contract
took out turning lanes. Southbound deceleration
lane needed.
Negotiating with contractor as of this writing.
s US 113 at intersection of MD 365, stop ahead sign
needed.
Erection of stop ahead sign completed March 1016.
== US 113 at Berlin Lions Club - one way signing
needed.
Do Not Enter sign erected March 10s*
The Committee again stressed their displeasure with the 6 to 7 year
completion date. They also reiterated their intention to contact their
elected officials and lobby for additional monies to accelerate
completion.
v|
:syr
-------
Distribution:
Hal Kassoff
Tom Hicks
Kirk McClelland
Dan Uebersax
Steve Udzinski
Lee Carrigan
Rudy ^.'albe
Raja Veeramachaneni
Mike Rothenheber
Jim Renaud
Glenn Evans
Ravi Ganvir
Al Budnichuk
Gene Cofieil
Sonny Larson
VI-27
-------
Friendship Community Association
10143 Three Penny Lane, Berlin, Maryland 21811
February 2, 1997
Ms. Sue Eajan
Project Manager
State Highway Administration
707 N. Calvert St.
Mail Stop C-301
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Ms. Rajan:
We have two main goals for this correspondence; One is to introduce ourselves and
share our concerns with your and other offices of the SHA. The second is to request
that you or a representative from SHA meet locally with us to respond to our
concerns.
|P We are a coalition of property owners who live adjacent to the current course of
U.S. 113 "Worcester Highway". We represent more than thirty individual member
households and three community churches. We represent the majority of the forty
or so structures that will be negatively impacted by the duaMzation of U.S. 113
along its current course in our area. While we accept the need for the
improvement of the existing highway we have a serious concern for the value of our
properties and the quality of our lives.
We have a narrow focus of concern, that being, from end of the existing dual section
just north of U.S. 50, northward, under Rt. 90 to a point about 1000 ft. south of the
intersection with MD. Route 589 "Race Track Road", where the proposed alternates
3N and 4N coincide. It is our position that in this section the new highway should
follow the more westerly route once labeled as Alt 4N. Most of us attended the
meeting at the Berlin Middle School last year and left with overwhelming
confidence that the SHA would indeed choose the route planned more than twenty
years ago, and spare our community the destruction and discomfort that will be
associated with expanding the highway in its current course. However, with the
recent archeological survey it is clear that the State is actively considering the
absurd. Our previous confidence shaken, we are organizing to support the State in
a decision to go around our community rather than through it.
VI-28
-------
Our first objection to the expansion of the highway in its current course is the issue
of safety. The main reason for addressing the highway at all is because of the high
loss of life that has been associated with it in the past thirty years. There is no
comparison in terms of safety between the two alternates being considered for our
area. Since the beginning we have been in contact with the C.R.A.S.H. coalition
and we are assured with regard to safety and the westerly alternate their interests
and ours are the same.
Access: If the highway is expanded in its current course it will remain lined with
many points of access. While entering vehicles will not be allowed to cross the
highway in most locations, we will have to enter a stream of traffic at increased
speeds. With the highway's current condition, speeds in our area average 50 +
mph. Speeds on an expanded section in our neighborhood would no doubt be much
higher. On the westerly 4N there is but one access to address in the entire course,
that of Carey road. On the existing course the same section will yield thirty plus
access points and the complex intersection of Carey, Friendship, and Jones roads.
Some of these could be grouped together but only at the human expense of ever
widening easements.
Curvature: The curvature of the highway at two points in our neighborhood is
legendary, both bends have confirmed IriTIs assigned to them. Even with your best
efforts to strike a balance between safety and property loss an expanded highway
along the current course will stall be much less straight than could be achieved with
the westerly Alt 4N .
Our second objection to expanding the highway in its current location is the human
and economic impact. As I stated earlier we feel that all of the 40 some habitable
structures along the current highway will be negatively affected by expansion in
place. It is obvious that many will actually have to be removed completely, but
many others will remain, only with less of a buffer between them and a louder more
invasive roadway. There are widespread concerns about the damage to the
property values of those whose homes will remain. Most of these structures
represent a life's investment to those who live there. Many of our members have
lived in this community all their Eves. Some have invested recently with
assurance that the new highway would go around our village. After all, there is an
overpass waiting to the west for the new road, and it has been there for twenty
years as evidence of the future course of 113. Many of our members live
comfortable lives here, but given only fair value for their holdings would be on
assistance forevermore. Our community makes sense, the architecture of our
village tells the story of a community that grew over time. Broadening the current
road will reduce this sensible village to a row of houses on one side of a high-speed
thoroughfare. Instead of an eclectic community, a new kind of rural ghetto will
remain. We would welcome the opportunity to talk with the persons who are doing
your human impact study before they submit their findings.
'VI-"29
-------
On the westerly 4N there are no homes to displace, no community to destroy. The
vast majority of the yet to be purchased easement is open farmland, owned by many
of the same people who would seek to preserve their homes by the old road. The
State would likely have little trouble negotiating purchases for the western route's
required easements. On the other hand I can assure the SHA that I have spoken
to no one who welcomes an offer for their holdings along the current road. While I
am sure some among us can be bought, none are planning to go cheaply, and few
will sell without a fight. The westerly Alt 4N is going to be the least expensive
route as well as the most humane.
Of course we are hoping that our efforts are unnecessary. When we look over the
map with all of our homes labeled and compare it to the emptiness of the land
proposed for Alt 4N it seems just a matter of common sense to go around us.
Unfortunately, we are all too aware that common sense guides little of what we do
today, it steers little of our values and less of our political world. We have decided
to keep after this issue until we get clear confirmation that the westerly alternate
4N is the route that will be used for our area of concern.
As to our request for a meeting, a week night would be best, we have been offered
one of the community's churches on any, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday. If
necessary we could probably find a suitable location for a Monday or Wednesday as
well. We would like to meet as soon as possible allowing for ten days notice to our
membership. In addition to our primary concerns for the placement of the new road
we would like to get from your offices and discuss at this meeting the latest plans
for the intersections within the area we are concerned with. Principally, Carey Rd.
& Alt 4N. Carey, Friendship and Jones roads with an Alt 3N expansion. Also the
plans for dealing with the two ends of the old 113 when Alt 4N is employed.
Please feel free to copy and distribute this letter as you feel appropriate
Sincerely,
Vice President
Enclosures, Photos from Jan. 25th Meeting.
Partial Member list
VI-30
-------
Friendship Community Association
Household Memberships—-
Member Roster
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE # PERSONS
' Babcock, Steve
Bartz, Rose
Bowen, Gail
xBowen, Lorenzo
Bowen, Marcella
Bowen, Shirley
'Carey, Roland
Casteel, Alice
'Cathell, Norman Sr.
Cathell, Norman Jr.
xGumpper, William
-Hastings, Calvin
Malone, Ronald
Manry, Randy
•-Mason, Reggie
v
'•Mitchell, Harry J.
Pennington, Michael
Pennington, Paul
Pennington, Richard
Reister, H. Clay
Rickards, Ron
11143 Worcester Hwy.
10602 Friendship Rd.
100305 Huckelberry La.
10445 Worcester Hwy.
10027 Huckleberry La.
10421 Worcester Hwy.
10254 Carey Rd.
10424 Worcester Hwy.
10711 Worcester Hwy.
10701 Shadey Drive.
10705 Worcester Hwy.
10688 Worcester Hwy.
10706 Worcester Hwy.
11106 Worcester Hwy.
10512 Worcester Hwy.
10511 Worcester Hwy.
•
10143 Three Penny La.
10210 ThreePenny La.
10124 Three Penny La.
10577 Worcester Hwy.
10413 Jones Rd.
VI-31
6410227
629-1415
641-0577
641-1732
641-3941
641-4472
641-2538
641-2044
641-0778
641-2371
641- 2533
641-2184
641 1217
641-9849
641- 2019
641-1530
641-3197
641-0886
641-7446
641-2230
1
2
5
6
2
2
2
2
3
4
2
2
2
4
2
2
4
2
2
5
2
-------
Friendship Community Association Member Roster
Ruth, Helen
Smith, Marvin
Squares, Roy
10494 Worcester Hwy.
10494 Worcester Hwy.
10498 Worcester Hwy.
^Wainwright, Madeline 10632 Worcester Hwy.
White, Bob 10358 Carey Rd.
^xWidic, Frank 10478 Worcester Hwy.
Vach, Richard 10746 Worcester Hwy.
Associated Member Churches -
Temple Bat Yam 11021 Worcester Hwy.
Trinity Episcopal Church 6190 Ocean Pines
Calvary Christian Chapel 11020 Worcester Hwy.
641- 2560
641-2560
641-2165
641-2173
641-0370
641-0744
213-0898
2
1
1
2
2
3
213-2806 / 524-6900
641-8708 / 208-6992
835-2307
VI-32
-------
is
Au-
1*1 -we
2--BATYI4M.,
-THfe.
-------
-------
Mary/and Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
• .' »S,Y, ..
February 28,1997
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
Mr. H. Clay Reister, IV
Vice President
Friendship Community Association
10143 Three Penny Lane
Berlin MD 21811
Dear Mr. Reister:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of the Friendship Community Association regarding US 113
in Worcester County. We appreciate your concern and involvement in our study and we hope
to work closely with the association throughout the development of this project.
As you requested, we have scheduled a meeting with your group on Thursday, March 13 at 5
p.m. The goals of this meeting will include developing a better understanding of the issues at a
community level, to create a working relationship between SHA and the Friendship Community
Association, and to develop the project in a way that best suits the community and addresses
the issues at hand.
At last year's Alternates Public Workshop Meeting at Berlin Middle School, we presented four
alternatives north of Berlin (see attached map): the No-Build Alternative, the Transportation
Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, which includes improvements to the existing roadway
without major alteration of the roadway cross-section, Alternative 3N, which proposes
dualization of US 113 to a four-lane cross-section along the existing roadway and Alternative
4N, which provides for a four-lane section mostly on a new location. Also discussed at this
meeting were Alternative 4N Options A and B which showed the possibility for other options on
alignments under consideration.
Following the Alternates Public Workshop, more detailed studies of the alignments began. Our
•planning process mandates that we study all reasonable and applicable alternatives that satisfy
the purpose and need of the project Alternatives undergoing more detailed study included the
TSM Alternative, Alternative 3N and Alternative 4N Modified. Alternative 4N Modified was
developed by combining the Alternative 4N with the Option A and Option B alignments that
were shown at the Public Workshop. In the Friendship area the dualization alternatives being
considered include Alternate 3N along the existing roadway and Alternative 4N Modified.
Alternative 4N Modified is being considered to the west of the existing road through the already
graded interchange area at MD 90 and then follows the 4N Option A alignment to tie back into
the existing roadway south of Racetrack Road (MD 589).
VI-35
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
\
v
-------
Mr. H. Clay Reister, IV
Page Two
These alternatives were developed in detail. Information was gathered to analyze the impacts
associated with each alternative. The impacts to residences, community facilities, and local
businesses were assessed. An analysis of historic and archeological resources was
conducted. The study also includes consideration of impacts to wetlands, farmland, floodplains,
water resources, vegetation and wildlife. Study results are compiled in a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) which will be made available for public review prior to the public
hearing.
A Location/Design Public Hearing for this project is tentatively scheduled in the Spring. At this
hearing we will present the results of our studies and will take public testimony. Subsequent to
this hearing, we will select a preferred alternative and complete a Final Environmental-impact
Statement (FEIS). The FEIS will include a conclusive reasoning for selecting the preferred
alternative based on the studies.
Public involvement with groups such as yours encompasses a large portion of our study
process. All letters and testimony at the public hearing will be included in the FEIS and do
influence the conclusions of the study. All members of your association have been added to
our mailing list so that everyone will receive updates and information on the project.
Again, thank you for your comments and involvement in the project. I look forward to meeting
with on March 13. If you have any questions please call me at (410) 545-8514 or toll free at 1-
800-548-5026.
Very truly yours,
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
by:
R. Suseela Rajatr
Project Manager
Project Planning Division
Attachment
cc: Mr. Donnie Drewer (w/incoming and attachment)
VI-36
-------
Alternatives still under consideration:
. Alternative 3N
"«55=» Alternative 4N (Modified)
NOTE: Alternative alignments shown at the public hearing
and dropped from consideration are not highlighted
ALTERNATIVE 4N
>«Or: ^ALTERNATIVE 3N fWff%»
* • ^"• >• -\\*
ALTERNATIVE 4N
OptionB
^W> *,
ALTERNATIVE 4N
Option A
[ALTERNATIVE 4N
TERNATIVE 3N L^/j
US 113 PLANNING STUDY
Preliminary
Alternatives
NORTHERN STUDY AREA
— — Dualfeatfon on Ex£s«ng Alignment
• ••••• DuaCzationonNawAltaronent
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
February 12,1997
RE: Project No.: WO720B11
US 113 Improvements from Snow Hill
to the Delaware State Line
Public Involvement
David L. Winst.
Secretary
Parker F. Willia
Administrator
Dear Sir/Madam:
The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) is currently conducting a study to improve US 113
from Snow Hill to the Delaware State Line. To comply with the President's Executive Order, 12898: Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations (EO), the SHA
is attempting to locate minority and low income groups in the study area shown on the enclosed map. Under
this EO, "minority" is defined as Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic, Asian American, American Indian and
Alaskan native. "Low income" is defined as those with income levels below the Department of Health and
Human Services poverty guidelines.
By identifying their locations, the SHA can determine if any of our proposed alternates would have a
disproportionately adverse impact on these groups. If such would be the case, the SHA would attempt to
minimize or avoid potential impacts to these groups. Also, the EO mandates consultation with these groups in
the development of projects with environmental impacts.
We would appreciate your assistance in informing your congregation about the project and our concern
with this issue. We are asking for your help in identifying tlie locations of homes in which minority or low
income people reside. There will be a Public Hearing in the spring of this year; however, the SHA wants to
provide the opportunity for meetings with the minority or low income groups prior to this time to address any
questions and concerns they may have regarding the project. Please contact me at 410-545-8514 or toll-free at
1-800-548-5026 with any information you may have regarding this matter. Thank you very much for your
assistance.
Very truly yours,
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
By:
R. Suseela Rajan
Project Manager
Project Planning Division
VI-38
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1 -800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
lion Baptist Church
ton Avenue
vHillMD 21863
Mt. SJartf&aptist Church
Line Road
Pocomoke City MD 21851
ws Parish House .
ist Market Street
21863
an City Baptist Chapel
I. Division Str.eeJL
an City MD 21842
Collins Temple Church
^6009_CastIe Mil Road
"Snow Hill MD21863""
chef the Holy Spirit
m City MD 21842
iohn African Methodist Episcopal
Cedar Street
smoke City MD 21851
St. John's AME Church
PO Box 357
Bishopville MD 21813
-ch of Christ
Jraham Avenue
nMD 21811
ams AME Church
6 Williams Church Road
JarkMD 2.1841
Glorious Church of the Lord Jesus Christ
609 Young Street
Pocomoke City MD 21851
in Ocean City Church of God
2 Sinepuxent Road
linMD 21811
th Fellowship of God
)50 Plantation Road
DewellMD 21817
Glad Tidings Assembly of God
Pocomoke City MD 21851
VI- 39
-------
Ocean City Worship Center
Assembly of God
41 Briarcrest Drive
~>cean City MD 21842
Faith Baptist Churoh
10514 Race Track Road
Berlin MD 21811
Calvary Chapel Christian Center
10959 Worcester Highway
Berlin MD 21811
First Baptist Church
204 Fourth Street
Pocomoke City MD 21851
First Baptist Church
613 Williams Street
-Berlin MD 21811
Snow Hi|J.Christian Church
Kay Street & Park Row
Snow Hill MD 21863
First Baptist Church Sunday School
202 Market Street
Pocomoke City MD 21851
Lynnhaven Baptist Church
1200 Lynnhaven Drive
Pocomoke City MD 21851
Church of God of Prophecy
Ocean City Blvd.
Berlin MD 21811
Pentacostal Baptist Church
519 S. Main Street
Berlin MD 218J1
Whaleysville United Methodist Church
11716 Sheppard's Crossing
A/haleysville MD 21872
Pitts Creek Baptist Church
Cedar Hall Road Extended
Pocomoke City MD 21851
St. Matthew Baptist Church
Bishopville MD 21813 '
Spence Baptist Church
7603 Spence Church Road
Snow Hill MD 21863
VI-40
-------
f'-,
Ionia Church
Voting Streets
lokeCityMD 21851
First Baptist Church of Gfrd/etree
Taylor Landing Road
Girdletree MD 21829
nited Methodist Church
3reekRoad
wille MD 21813
_iunity ChurcJx „
__Race Track Road
. Pines MD 21842
Curtis United Methodist Church
BishopvHIe MD 21813_1 ^ V
notGod
ngton Street
Hill MD -21863
m United Methodist Church
i Street
lokeCityMD 21851
St. James United Methodist Church
St. James Road :
Pocomoke City MD 21851
j| United Methodist Church
ower Street
MD 21811
Stevenson United Methodist Church
123 N. Main Street
Berlin MD 21811
viile United Methodist Church
; Road
MD 21811
Trinity United Methodist Church
1423 Unionville Road
Pocomoke City MD 21851
VI-41
-------
lary the Virgin
rd Street
ocomoke C'rty MD 21851
Paul's By The Sea Episcopal Chuch
302 N. Baltimore Avenue
Ocean City MD 21842
aul's Parish House
erlinMD 21811
St. George Greek Orthodox Church
8805 Coastal Hwy.
Ocean City MD 21842
Ighway Holiness Church
Dpewell Road
pewellMD 21817
Miracle Deliverance Tabernacle
1443 Ocean Hwy.
Pocomoke City MD 21811
:. James Holiness Church
"ghton Avenue
now Hill MD 21863
Snow Hill Deliverance Center
108 Steven Street
Snow Hill MD 21863
nrist Church United
349 Snow Hill Road
now Hill MD 21863
New Testament Tabernacle
105 Front Street
Pocomoke City MD 21851
VI-42
-------
•ah's Witnesses
Street
MD 21811
St. Peter's Lutheran Church
10301 Coastal Hwy.
Ocean City MD 21842
Srove Mennonite Church
onite Road
•nokeCityMD 21851
-Ocean City Mennonite Church,
11811 Ocean Gateway. _
Ocean City MD 21842
5 Methodist Church
4. Washington Street
'/Hill MD "21863""
Cool Springs United Methodist Church
Onley Road
GirdietreeMD 21829
lezer United Methodist Church
is Street
21863
Friendship United Methodist Church
Friendship Road
Friendship MD 21811
letree United Methodist Church
5 Snow Hill Road
letree MD 21829
Mt Wesley Church
Scotland Road
Snow Hill MD 21863
VI-43
-------
lew Bethel United Methodist Church
Sermantown & Trappe Road
erlinMD 21811
New Bethel United Methodist Church Part
Germantown & Trappe Road
Berlin MD 21811
it John's Methodist Church
739 Lewis Road
erlinMD 21811
St. Matthew's Church
Cherrix Rod
BoxironMD 21829
"«alem Bethany United Methodist Church
nd Street
'ocomoke City MD 21851
Shiloh Methodist Church
2655 Worcester Hwy.
Pocomoke City MD 21851
^atcoat United Methodist Church
02 West Federal Street
•rtow Hill MD 21863
Wilson United Methodist Church
Bishopville MD 21813
'ocomoke Church of the Nazarene
JS 13 & Old Virginia Road
'ocomoke City MD 21851
Arcadia Bible Church
403 Market Street
Pocomoke City MD 21851
VI-44
-------
ot Ministries, Inc.
rcester Street
CityMD 21842
Victory Worship Center
701 Ocean Hwy.
Pocomoke City MD 21851
Jerusalem Holy Church
~vlarkerstreef~
Hill MD 21863
Pentecostal Church of God Llncolnjnc;
j^Uo Out oirssi-- — - . - ~
Pocomoke City MD 21851
noke Worship Center
/illow Street
noke CityMD 21851
Calvary Pentecostal Church
RT113N
Bishopville MD 21813
Corinthians Holiness Church
n Ay & Banks Street
-nokeCityMD 21851
Refuge Temple Revival Center
RT12
Stockton MD 21864
ingham Presbyterian Church
Main Street
iMD 21811
First Presbyterian Church
13th Street & Phila. Avenue
Ocean City MD 21842
VI-45
-------
kemie Memorial Presbyterian Church
5 Franklin Street
owHillMD 21863
Pitts Creek Presbyterian Church
210 Market Street
Pocomoke City MD 21851
hobeth Presbyterian Church
• 1 Box 184
.•hobeth MD 21857
. Luke's Catholic Church
Oth Costal Hwy.
seanCityMD 21842
St. Andrew's Catholic Church
14401 Sinepuxent Avenue
Berlin MD 21811
. Mary's Star of the Sea Catholic Church
)8 Baltimore Avenue
ceanCHyMD 21842
Pocomoke City Seventh-Day Adventist C
US 13 & US 113
Pocomoke City MD 21851
tlantic United Methodist Church
altirnore Ave & 4th Street
•ceanCityMD 21842
Bethany United Methodist Church
8648 Stephen Decatur Hwy.
Berlin MD 21811
VI-46
-------
ny United Methodist Women
larket Street
nokeCityMD 21851
Bishopville Methodist Church
Main Street
Bishopville MD 21813
-ry United Methodist Church
nireMD 21811
VI-47
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Wir
Secretary
Parker F. Wi
Administrator
February 24, 1997
Mr. Robert Hulburd
Nationwide Insurance
Suite 4 .... ~" _
10776 Gray's Corner Road
Berlin MD 218
,/
Dear Mr
Thank" 'you for your recent notes regarding the US 113 project in Worcester County.
We certainly appreciate your efforts and support in working with the community and the
elected officials.
The Location/Design Public Hearing for this project is tentatively scheduled forjate
May. As soon as the date is finalized we will let you know. Currently we are meeting with
the State and Federal environmental agencies to address their concerns and issues in order to
meet our compressed project schedule.
You inquired if you could do anything else to bring the importance of this project to
the attention of the Federal legislators. It would be helpful to have other interested citizens
write directly to the appropriate Federal officials expressing support for the project. In the
future, we will carbon copy you when we write to the local elected officials regarding the
US 113 project.
Again, thank you for your comments and support for the project. We will keep you
abreast of our progress. If you have any questions or need any information on this project,
please feel free to call me or Mr. Neil Pedersen, our Director of Planning and Preliminary
Engineering, who may be reached at (410) 545-0411.
Sincerely, /
?arker F. Williams
Administrator
cc: Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director, State Highway Administration
VI- 48
My telephone number is _
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1 -800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
RPR 11'97 09'-19 FR KCI UPDS
410 316 7853 TO 94103331105
P.01
10 North P»rk Drive
HuntVilty.MD 21030-1888
(410)316-7800
FaxNumber
(410)316-7817
April 10.1997 —-. ~ — --
Mr. Wade Taylor, Assistant Director
Worcester County Office of Emergency Services .
Courthouse, Room L-14
1 West Market Street -~
Snow Hill, MD 21863
Dear Mr. Taylor:
Subject: Emergency service accessibility concerns regarding proposed roadway improvements to
US 113 between Snow HJll and the Delaware State Line
--KCI-j0b Nianber. 01-96116D
" AsaconsuUanYtotheMary^^
assessing potential socioeconomic environmental impacts for a Draft Environmental Impact
slSr^ntiofme above referenced project. Per our conversation yesterday, I am enclosmg a
description of the proposed alternatives for your reviewand am requesting your input to determine
how emergency services and responses times to emergencies located in the project smdy areanugto
~be"affS Jnoem hi been expressed by some of the regulatory agencies reviewing th* project
that response times would increase because of a median incorporated into most of the alternates
under consideration.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. Please respond to me in writing ante> above
address. If you have any questions or need additional informaaon, please call me at (410) 316-
7865.
". Sincerely."
Steve Linhart
Environmental Planner
enclosure
VI- 49
KQ TECHNOLOGIES. INC
ENGINEERS *nd PLANNERS
**
PAGE. eat
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Winste;
Secretary
Parker F. Willian
Administrator
fUlEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director ... _i;_ ;_ „;..
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
ft. Suseela Rajan
Project Manager _.
April 15,1997
Meeting with Friendship Community Association for the US 113
Planning Study
On March 13 Sue Rajan, Donnie Drewer, Lorraine Strow, and Cathy Maner met with
the Friendship cLmUrty Association to expiain the project to them and *J*pan
unHeLndina of their concerns. The community of Friendsh.p is located just north of
Berlin In the vicinity of the US 113 interchange with MD 90. In addition to Mr. M.chael
penns^ton, President, and Mr. H. Clay Reister, Vice-President of the assoc,at,on,
approximately 40 citizens attended the meeting.
exa^
™mSrP|nssu*s wh4 must be reconciled, so some ^edule changes can somet,mes
be^xoected A location design hearing is tentatively scheduled for mid-June and at
ftat fee we wm 6e taking comments for the public record. A Draft^nv.ronmenta
impad Statement (DEIS) is being developed and will be available before the publ,c
hearing. The contents and purpose of the DEIS were explained.
The alternatives'being considered in the Friendship area were explained. Alternative
^ proves duatolon along the existing roadway and displaces ™^?™es and
ona business in the 2 6 mile section between Berlin and MD 589. Alternative 4N
foTow™ alignment to the west of the existing US 113 and ties back ,n w, h the
existing road near its intersection with MD 589. This align men doe s^no require any
displacements, however it has a more significant impact on natural resources.
VI-50 — ' "
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
• 1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 . Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
The citizens emphasized that the road is unsafe and improvements are extremely
neLssarV The study team explained the many impacts that the study is addressing
and also explained that alternatives for implementing improvements along the existing
road are always addressed by our planning studies. The citizens expressed a strong
opposition to Alternative 3N since it displaces so many residences m their town They
were di Splinted that SHA did not identify Alternative 4N Modified as our preferred
7-alternative. -•-••™—•---—^^-~-..--—•,. . :.•;__ . -~-T=-=TT—~r-- -ri- ^—r. .-.. .'—-rr=s?.-;.-i ..' •—•--, - :..-—s?~-,.~.-^,±±
^The residents also inquired about access controls that would be in place if Alternative
4N were implemented Access to Alternative 4N would be controlled with access points
only at major intersections. The existing US 113 would become a local servjcejpad
wrth lower speeds. The service road design would prevent people from cuttmg-through
the Friendship area instead of using theTTew US 113 alignment. Once the pro}ect ,-••
progresses into design, SHA will work with the citizens to design the access controls in
a way that is suitable to the town.
These minutes are based on the interpretation of the writer. Jf you
questions or comments please call Mrs. Sue Rajan, Project Manager at (410) 545-8514
or Ms. Catherine Maher, Project Engineer at (410) 545-8544.
by:
-------
:52PM Sm POMINISTRATOR 410 333 1586
OCEAN PINES ASSOCIATION, INC
\Jlrrj Al* •". M-rviand 21811 • (410) 641
239 OCMB P*Aw*v
The Hcnoiable Parrw Gl
100 State Circle
Annapolis, MD 21401
Dear Governor Gle
to niks that work a high priori
Pinei • Berlin, V^toad 21811 • (410) 641-7717
ftECEIV]
CO!
: Oc«a» Pines Board of Directors,
Sincerely,
U
OPAPtesident
Vl-51a
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
/•The Secretary's Office
April 25, 1997
Parris N. Gfenderar
Governor
David LWinstead
Secretary
John D. Poresrf
Deputy Secretary
Mr. Richard P. Brady _=_ ._.-" ,„. _... _."._„_,'_- _U _. ,'_L__.
President
Ocean Pines Association, Inc.
,239 Ocean Parkway . , :___. ....
2700 Ocean Pines
Berlin MD 21811 -
Dear Mr. Brady:
Thank you for your recent letter to Governor Glendening regarding the support from
the Ocean Pines community for the dualization of US 113 from Berlin to the Delaware State
Line. The Governor asked me to respond on his behalf.
US 113 project is one of the top priorities by the State Highway Administration
(SHA) and has been placed on an expedited schedule.. Coordination with the yanous Federal
and State agencies is underway to meet the project schedule. A Location/Design Public ^
Hearing, to identify a proposed and alternative for improvements, is scheduled for mid-June.
In the meantime, SHA is also looking at interim improvements to address the safety
problems along this road.
-Again, thank you for your letter. The Governor appreciates hearing from you and on
his behalf, I also thank you for the interest which prompted you to write. If you need
additional information regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call Mr. Neil .
Pedersen, SHA's Director of Planning and Preliminary Engineering, who may be reached at
(410)545-0411.
Sincerely,
cc:
DavidL. Winstead
• Secretary
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director, State Highway Administration
Mr. Parker F. Williams, Administrator, State Highway Administration
Vl-51b
My telephone number is (410)
865-1000
TTY For the Deafc (410) 865-1342
Post Office 0ox 87S5. BaffimoreAWasWngton International Airport. Maryland 21240-0755
-------
41Q 333 1586
P.3/12003
Chairperson: 3udj Bogcs
Vice Chairpenoi:
Barbara Beaubfea
Recording Secretary:
Marie Vefone
ComopoHifing Secretary;
DiaoaPanwII
Trtamren . )
Teresa Haxmncrbtcber
Htnariam
8ctiy?can
Committee Chairpcnoai
Legislation & Advocacy: f
Teresa Hammerbicherj
ffJ*Q^P|^^f^jp^. I
Baiisara Trader *
Judy Baejs
Public Ififor0un*oa;
Jo Canxpbdl
Tcratt Hammerbadwr
Health:
Barbara Beaubiea
Other ComraUiioiien:
Helen Flihcr
BID Gray _. :
Helena Hetuun
Karen Hokk
Pamela McCabe
inicm Klchord
. • • -.»
X . • .
COMMISSION FOR. WOMEN
POST OFFICE BOX 59
BISHOPVILLE,MD 21813
April 3, 1997
•The Hon. FarrbGiendenning
Governor of Maryland
State-Some
Annapolis, MD 21401*
Governor Gfc
APR 8 1997
OF
The Worcester Coonty Commission tor Women nrges you to
prioritize landing and expedite the duinzatinn of Route 113 Jn
Worcester County. ' • ,, .
' Seventy pei^le have lort their fives in automobile accidents
oo thfe road since 1977, twenty-two of whom have^ been killed
withinthelastfiixyears. .
, We strancfy support dualization to make this major highway
Jt tbrttedSLa of^Worcester County, and fndeed^or all those
wiiii tasel to the Eastern Shore to eujoy the beach sad mr ™>nv
recreational activities. '
Sincerely,
Judith O>
Chairpersoo
RECEIVED
i
'S OFFICE
VI-51C
Phone: (voice mai
iaiO 219-1895 Fax: (410) 2SW967 E-maU: iofiseigecotopics
i.com
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
The Secretary's Office
April 24, 1997
Parris N. Gtendenint
Governor
David LWlnstead
Secretary
John D. Porcarl
Deputy Secretary
Ms. Judith" O. Boggs . ~" ; , ~"-y J_ ~ _'^y -J_:'"'"-^^'-Ziir^.
Chairperson
Worcester County Commission for Women
P.O. Box 59
Bishopville MD 21813 ~ ~~
Dear Ms. Boggs:
Thank you for your letter to Governor Glendening regarding your request to prioritize
funding and to expedite the dualization of US 113 in Worcester County. The Governor
asked me to respond on his behalf.
The number of fatalities occurring along this stretch of US 1.13 is of great importance
to us The State Highway Administration (SHA) has identified the US 113 project as one of
the top priorities and has placed it on an expedited-schedule. Coordination^ witiUhe vanous.,
Federal and State agencies is underway in order to meet the project schedule. The
Location/Design Public Hearing is scheduled for mid-June. The SHA is also looking at
interim improvements to make this a safer road.
Again7-thank you for your letter. The Governor appreciates hearing from you and,
on his behalf, I also thank you for the interest which prompted you to write. Jf you need
additional information regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Parker F.
Williams, State Highway Administrator, at (410) 545-0400 or his Director of ™u™og and
Preliminary Engineering, Mr. Neil Pedersen, who may be reached at (410) 545-0411.
Sincerely,
cc:
.:,.-_. - David L. Winstead
Secretary
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director of Planning and Preliminary Engineering, State
Highway Administration . . .
Mr. Parker F. Williams, Administrator, State Highway Administration
Vl-51d
My telephone number is (410)
865-1000
TTY Forthe Deaf. (410) 865-1342
Post Office Box 8755, Baffirrare/Wasrungton International Airport, Maryland 21240-0755
-------
-------
Mr. Robert Zepp
US 113 frcm MD 394 to Delaware
US 113 stuay^- purpose
Page Two
FIB In ftQneurrpp^
fe»mment p»'»* Hera- Piimnsft and Need, fitC.
Please
one:
Concur (without comments)
Concur (comments attached)
Do not concur (comments attached)
Date
VI-52
-------
3-.ESD'
215 537 1850 P.B2.
:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
- . - -' REGION HI " .
' ••' -841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-4431
DEC -1 4 1995
Mr. Joseph R. Kresslein _..,_ _„,
Assistant Division Chief • ___ '
Project Planning Division
Maryland State Highway Administration
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Dear Mr. Kresslein:
This letter is in response to your request for concurrence on the
Purpose and Need Statement for the US 113 Study. Upon reviewing the
purpose and Need Statement dated in your November 3, 1995 letter, we c
•concurtto the statement as currently presented.
Our reasons are based on the following:
* The Purpose and Need Statement should discussythe/proble^n—not'
solutions—such as "dualization" of US 113. The alternatives ana
stage will discuss the solutions, like dualization, to the proble
in this case/ the Purpose and Need Statement states that "overall
safety11 needs to be improved. While there have been spot improve
to address the safety issues, it appears that there has not been
follow up regarding how successful or unsuccessful the improvemer
hava been. 'Studies'or analysis of 'the spot .improvements will .nee
be.,conducted in -order to'address the safetyjissue,
The Purpose and Need Statement discusses the number of accidents
have occurred along US 113 in the study area. Numerous comparisc
have been made between various segments in the study area to the
statewide average. In some cases the Statement quotes the state*
averages, and in others it does not. Statewide averages should t
included-for all .segments for consistency and comparisons i
In general, the total accident rate is "lower than the statewide
average, rate for similarly designed highways in each study area a
the study areas combined" (page 6) . However, fatal accidents are
higher in the northern area. The-Purpose-and Need .Statement shot
.provide«'an-faccident*-map-identifying the .location -. of ,.the: fatalitie
•year^.(season, -if;availableJ^and type .of, accident (i.e. head-on, a
etc.). (See Interagency Meeting Notes, May 17, 199S. SHA states
accident map is available.) This would help determine which area
US 113 are-less safe than-others.
VI- 53
Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress
-------
12:85
EPfl REG 3 ESD
215 5S7
.• • - . • .,: " . Page 2 (
The traffic data-rshould-. include., origin., and ..destination rinf ormation• Jb
assess any trends^-indicating.where.most-of~the accidents, occur. Are
they occurring seasonally with people travelling towards ocean City
("the second largest city in Maryland because of vacations," page 24
of Interagency Notes from 5/17/95), or are they occurring elsewhere?
Solutions, such as dualization, may not necessarily guarantee that
fatality rates will.drop. For example, in the dualized section from
Pokomoke to Snow Hill, "...the fatality rate is slightly higher than
the statewide average" (page 25 of the Interagency Notes).
In the Purpose and Need Statement, the accident data includes-a
statistical figure using Mar in's Upper Control Limit. However,:
is. no explanation why. this.figure was used. and. what it. means.
The Traffic Summary—Average Daily Traffic—(pages 4 and 5^ of the
Statement) uses two different variables: 1995 ADT is calculated for
weekdays all vear. while the forecasted ADT for the year 2020 is
calculated for weekends in th«* grammar-, .'if'is unclear ..why twor
"different" measurements'are'used. •-
Under "Existing Conditions," (second paragraph) which reads: "The
southern-portion-,---from south of Snow Hill to just south of Berlin...
'' ": """' —---- - • -
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Purpose and Need
"ratement. Should you have questions, please contact Mary Ann Boyer at
215) 597-3634.
Sincen
Roy E,
NEPA Program ManaJ
. VI- 54
Celebrating 25 Years'of Environmental Progress
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Wi
Secretary
Hal Kassoff
Administrator
March 5,1996
RE: Contract No. WO 720-101-170
US 113: Snow Hill to
Delaware State Line
:""" ROMS No. 232084
Mr. Roy E. Denmark
NEPA Review Coordinator
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia PA 19107-4431 .
Dear Mr. Denmark:
Thank you for your letter dated December 14,1995 offering comments on the
Pu^ose and Need Statement (P+NS) for the US 113 project pbnmnjjI studyj
have attached the revised P+NS, summarized your concerns in the addendum
and prepared responses to each one.
After reviewing the following responses, I am requesting that you sign the
concurrence line provided.
Should you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact
Joseph R. Kresslein at (410) 545-8550.
Very truly yours,
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
JosejSh R. Kressl^
Assistant Division Chief
Project Planning Division
VI-55
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 . Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
Mr. Roy E. Denmark
US 113 Study
Page Two
Concurrence:
US EnvironmentarProtection Agency
Date
LHE:PFM
Enclosures (5)
cc: Mr. LeRoy Carrigan
Mr. Louis H. Ege Jr.
_ Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Ms. GayOlsen
Ms. Cynthia D. .Simpson.
Ms. Lorraine Strow
Mr. Alan Straus
VI- 56
-------
Addendum
Comment 1:
The Purpose and Need Statement should discuss the problem not solutions,
such as dualization of US 113. The alternatives analysis stage will discuss the
solutions, like dualization, to the problem(s).
The Purpose and Need states that overall roadway safety needs to be improved^
While there have been spot improvements to address the safety issues, it
appears that there has not been any follow up regarding the success of those
improvements. Studies or analysis of the spot improvements will need to be
conducted, in order to address the safety issue.
Response: Please refer to page eight, paragraph one, BACKGROUND, of
the revised Purpose and Need Statement and appropriate
attachments
The Purpose and Need Statement includes a detailed discussion of the
problem(s) to be addressed, along with supporting documentation. The purpose
and need has been revised to eliminate premature discussion of study
alternatives. However, under the section on System Continuity, duaiization of
US 113 is still referred to, but only in the context of how continuity of the roadway
system beyond the project's limits would relate to the need for our study.
Analysis of the success of the spot improvements would not be meaningful at
this time because they have not been in place long enough to fajrjy determine
effectiveness.
It should be noted that the improvements made to the intersections at MD 610,
MD 589, and Pitts Road were not intended to significantly improve the overall
safety conditions in the US 113 corridor. Rather, the left turn lanes and
acceleration and deceleration lanes were intended to improve traffic operations
at these particular locations.
In general, the spot improvements were designed to benefit certain areas along
the roadway. They should be seen as interim improvements that will improve
particular locations until the US 113 project planning study can be developed
and implemented.
Comment 2:
The Purpose and Need Statement discusses the number of accidents that have
occurred along US 113 in the study area. Numerous comparisons have been
VI- 57
-------
made between various segments in the study area to the statewide averages
and in others it does not. Statewiae averages should be included for all
segments for consistency and comparisons.
Response: Please refer to page six, paragraph three of the revised
Purpose and Need Statement
The Purpose and Need Statement has been revised to include, among other
' "' s
-------
"... the fatality rate is slightly higher than the statewide average" (page 25 of the
Interagency Notes).
Respopse: Please refer to the Worksheet enclosure
SHA believes that alternatives that will physically separate opposing traffic will
decrease fatalities. This conclusion is based on research that indicates 70 /o of
fatal accidents in the northern study area occurred as a result of opposite
direction collisions. However, this study will include investigation of all
reasonable alternatives.
Comments: .____._ _.
In the Purpose and Need Statement, the accident data includes a statistical
figure using Morin's Upper Control Limit. However there is no explanation why
this figure was used and what it means.
Response: Please refer to page seven, paragraph two of the revised
Purpose and Need Statement
Morin's Upper Control Limit was included in the Purpose and Need Statement
because, at the April Interagency Review Meeting, the Army Corps of Engineers
raised a question of how significance was determined and how it should be
displayed/conveyed when discussing significantly high occurrences of certain
accidents.
The Purpose and Need Statement does explain that "Morin's Upper Control ^
defines the upper limit of the range above which a statistic becomes significant.
It was used to define fatalities in the northern study area as significantly higher
than the statewide average, for similar roadways.
Comment 7:
The Traffic Summary-Average Daily Traffic-(pages 4 and 5 of the Statement)
uses two different variables: 1995 ADT is calculated for wp*Mavs all year while
the forecasted ADT for the year 2020 is calculated for wppfrpiyls m the summer.
' It is unclear why two different measures are used.
Response: Please refer to page four, IBAEE!£of the Purpose and Need
Statement
The ADT measures are represented this way to illustrate worst case scenarios.
The companions that are being made are 1995 ADT vs^ the 2020 forecasted
ADT, and the 1995 summer ADT vs. the 2020 forecasted summer ADT. This
VI-59
-------
comparison is more
Statement.
Comments:
clearly illustrated in the Revised Purpose and Need
north of Snow Hill... ". ______ : _ _ ________ ___ _ _
- ' PteaselifeFtopage three, paragraph four of (he revised
Response-
Purpose and Need Statement
VI-60
-------
mY-06-199S 10:39
REG 3 ESD
215 597 1E30 P. 02
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-4431
MAY 0 2 I996
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr. j^
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration — —
707 North Calvert Street., _.„ ., ... ,_..._.. "...
Baltimore/ Maryland 21203
RE: U.S. 113: .Snow Hill to Delaware State Line Purpose and Need
Dear Mr. Ege: . •-
These comments are offered in response to your revised
Purpose and Need dated March 5, 1996 and responses to our
December 14, 1995 comment letter for the above referenced
project. Based on our review,, we do not concur with the revised
purpose and need.
Our comments are as follows:
• While we understand that the spot improvements have net been
in place for a long time, a commitment to assess the success
of the spot improvements during the environmental study
phases of the project should be addressed in the Purpcis& and
Need. Success or failure of the spot improvements thu^ far
is essential information to determine future needs of the
project area and to determine alternatives that could
satisfy the purpose and need as intended by NEPA.
• The Accident Maps provided with the revised purpose and need
have no key to indicate what the letters and numbers & -.and
for. This should be provided so that the Maps are useful
for review.
• Page 6, third and fourth paragraphs include accident au-id
fatality rates, respectively, as compared with the statewide
averages. However, as presented, it is confusing. Pot:
example, the southern and northern 113 accident rates .sre
lower than the statewide average, yet the last sentence of
the third paragraph states "Even (though) the total accident
rate is lower than the statewide average rate for similarly
designed highways, these figures represent a significant
number of accidents.n This sentence should be reworded to
make more, sense and should include how you determine the
value of a "significant number.n< Paragraph four state™ when
describing values fo± fatality rates "This translates .'.nto a
study rate of 4.1 fatal acc/lOOmvm compared to 3.2 fatal
acc/lOOmvm. " This statement should specify which rate :s a
VI-61
Celebrating 25 Tears of Environmental Progress
-------
I1PIY-06-199S 10:48
EPfl REG 3 ESD
215 597 18.50
statewide average and which is specific to 113.
• Page 9 last sentence states that "If warranted, the MTA will
explore Park-in-R£d& opportunities in the.future." The
alternates analysis in the environmental documents should
include' the Park-in-Ride options by itself and in
combination with other alternatives. The study should
include these options to determine if this alternative could
satisfy the purpose and need.
;. • ..Page 10 of.-the-purpose and heed provides .conclusions that
_L '___". improvements jt.o....US.,._il3 would-satisfy, the problems of iheziZTl
area. . Providing safer roadway for travelers, relieving
severe congestion through year 2020 and reducing
significantly high fatal-accident rates in the northej.-n
- -.— study area are fine goals to have for the purpose and need—~
and environmental study. However, it is premature to
. , conclude that improvements to US 113 is the solution co ~
: these goals. Providing solutions in the purpose and need
, stage of a project constitutes a predetermination on the
part of the state highway administration. The revised
purpose and need should not provide ^conclus ions to a^ study
that has yet to be completed. -
• _Attachments to the purpose and need includes pie charts and
""—study worksheets with information on accident types, under
Collision Types in the Season/Surface/Light Collision. Types
.„: pie charts Opposite Direction shows to account for 56V of ~
the collision types. However, in the Accident Study
Worksheets, the largest number of collision type for tne
overall Northern and Southern study areas is fixed-obj-aet.
To determine the problems and solutions for the accident and
fatality rates for this project, these figures need to be
—: elarifiedT" " .. - - , .
,•" -• . . ' - ' ..... % . • ..
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please coatact
Danielle Algazi at (215) 597-1168 should you have any questi.ons.„„._
Please note that starting May 20th, her new number will be (215)
566-2722.
Sincerely
Roy E. Denmark,
NEPA Program Manage
cc: Michele Gomez, COE
Bill Schultz, FWS
Renee Sigel, PHWA
Celebrating 25 Tears of Environmental Progress
VI- 62
TQTflL P.8"
-------
MarytandDepartmentofTransportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Wir
Secretary
Hal Kassoff
Administrator
RE:
June 17,1996
Contract No. WO 720-101-170
US 113: Snow Hill to the
Delaware State Line .
PDMSNo. 232084
Mr. Roy E. Denmark •"— "—
NEPA Review Coordinator
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
841 Chestnut Building _
Philadelphia PA 19107-4431
Dear Mr. Denmark:
Thank you for your letter dated May 2 offering comments on the Purpose and Need
Statement (P&NS) for the US 113 project planning study. Your concerns have been
summarized in the attached errata sheet and responses to each one have been
prepared. The revisions to the P&NS which you have recommended will be reflected in
the purpose and need discussion of the draft environmental document.
After reviewing the following responses, I am requesting that you sign the concurrence
line provided.
Should you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Joseph
R. Kresslein at (410) 545-8550.
Very truly yours,
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Joseph R. Kres _
Assistant Division Chief
Project Planning Division
(410) 545-8500
VI-63
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717' ^
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
Mr. Roy E. Denmark
US 113 Study - Purpose and Need Statement
Page Two
Please check one: - --•-
,...., — Concur (without comments) —;
Concur (comments attached)
Do not concur (comments attached)
US Environmental Protection Agency
Date
LHE:PFM
cc: Mr. LeRoy Carrigan
Mr. Louis H. Ege Jr.
Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Ms. GayOlsen
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
Ms. Renee Sigel
Ms. Lorraine Strow
Mr. Alan Straus
VI-64
-------
,,,i,'ill1111, l»i|,„!!,.,.'i!',: ''"I""
jUlil'iM Clillll ,
IHEniliJB:,!!
in place for a long
T a" commrbnent to assess the success of the spot improvements during the
ll^SJEOjinienjiJ study phases of the project should be addressed in the purpose and —
: oflhe spol improvements thus far is essential information to
•'• I _ .'"' '. ' •• t *_ • -_. tX_ _^.«A!t • *&** £L*««6 tf**Ht 1tf4
i i ii n A GQ S LI CC3S S
determine the future" needs of the project area and to determine alternatives that could
satisfy the purpose and need as intended by NEPA.
! ........ i !:!!':'..
Response:
[[[ iiin1 , ....... ' „ , ..... ' '•'"';,-,' , I'1, '
e ..... Irsl ...... pa'ragrapH ....... oTfie ....... 'gicteroun'd section, 'in the Purpose and Need Statement,
discusses tfiaf ilrnosf all of the spot improvements will have been in place for one full
year during tn'is summer. The State Highway Administration (SHA) agrees to study
these improvements after they have been in place for a year and will include a
discussion of their effectiveness in the draft environmental document. However, the
'..', .......... i ........................................ : ...... i..' ........ 'i ............ , ........ „ ....... „ ............... i »i „ ..iijit''..! ........... , ........ ® ............... , ...... i ..'"in,1 •» . . . * j ~ • n ' ••.*§__ ___ t. ._ S,« & . .21 1 ^.^J
I")!"
.',, Ml,
1*
IcIienFdata used to generate the reports and statistics used in the analysis will not be
until tfie fall, due fai, the time necessary for the transfer of the accident reports
responding state troopers and tiTe cornpITafidn of the information.
provided with the revised purpose and need have no key to indicate
Comment 2:
-The
useful for review.
»
numBers stand for. This should be provided so that the maps are
Rgsponse:
Sapsthatwere sent indicate the locations where all accidents occurred, during the
iia time period: The notations that accompany the locations reflect the following
information, in the following order year, log mile, accident severity, collision type,
roadwav
The year ana" log mile are self explanatory. Severity is denoted with an F for fatal, I for
injury, and F> for Property Damage. Collision type is denoted as being an opposite
=! "Iriiion accllni: Ingle incident, left turn accident, sideswipe accident, fixed object
accident, rear end accident, collision with an animal accident, parked vehicle accident,
aig iiglEIicSiS'Wpei; which could include accidents caused by thrown objects
slrllhg Coving wfijcles, causing drivers to lose control. Illumination is denoted N for
night and D for day. Roadway Surface is denoted with D for dry, W for wet and S for
kiwi Irid I for Ice.
:;"™'i'n^r.^^::r™":± ,;,vi- 65
iiiir nil :iu iiniiiM^^ i iiijiiipiiiiiH i»i i n 11 i n 11 11111 in ii 11 nil n n a iii nl 11 n n 11111 n 111 in
-------
Mr. Roy E. Denmark
US 113 Study - Purpose and Need Statement
Page Two
Fill in concnrrence/commpnt point he
Please check one:
*.
Concur (without comments) -•--
Concur (comments attached)
Do not concur (comments attached)
US Environmental Protection Agency
Date
LHE:PFM
cc: Mr. LeRoy Carrigan
Mr. Louis H. Ege Jr. ~
Mr. Joseph Kresslein
• " • Ms. GayOlsen
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
Ms. Renee Sigel
Ms. Lorraine Strow
Mr. Alan Straus
VI-64
-------
I-'
Addendum
Comment 1:
While we understand that spot the improvements have not been in place for a long
time, a commitment to assess the success of the spot «mprovemen* dunng ttie
environmental study phases of the project should be addressed in> the purpose.and -
need. Success or failure of the spot improvements thus far is essent»l ^formaton to
Setermine the future needs of the project area and to determine alternatives that could
satisfy the purpose and need as intended by NEPA.
Response:
The first paragraph of the BsckarsuM section, in the Purpose and Need Statement,
^S^SSS^t all oTfefeprovements will have been in place for one full
year during this summer. The State Highway Administrate (SHA) agree*.to study
these improvements after they have been in place for a year anci wrflinclude a
discussion of their effectiveness in the draft environmental d<**™
accident data used to generate the reports and statistics used ,
available until the fall, due to the time necessary for the transfe
from the responding state troopers and the compilation of the information.
Comment 2:
The accident maps provided with the revised purpose and ^ *™ ™^ * l
what the letters and numbers stand for. This should be provided so that the maps are
useful for review.
» '
Response:
The maps that were sent indicate the locations where all agents occurred during fte
specified time period. The notations that accompany he ^^"^^^"^
information, in the following order, year, log mile, accident seventy, collision type, .
illumination, and roadway surface.
The year and log mile are self explanatory. Severity is denotedI wrtlran£ ferttjU for
Injury^ and P for Property Damage. Collision type is denoted as bemg an-WOto
direction accident, angle accident, left turn accident
accident, rear end accident, collision with an animal
and other accident types, which could include accidents caused bthrown^
striking moving vehicles, causing drivers to lose control IM"™™*"" » J^SS 8 tor
night and D for day. Roadway Surface is denoted with D for dry, W for wet and S for
snow, and I for Ice.
VI- 65
-------
night and D for day. Roadway Surface is denoted with D for dry, W for wet and.Srfor
snow, and 1 for Ice. .
Comment 3:
Page 6, third and fourth paragraphs, include accident and fatality ra
acc/100mvm." This statement should specify which rate is a statewide average
which is specific to US 113.
Response
a™rag^
The fourth paragraph of the section entitled AssMSDiS^has ^/SoOrnvm
reads as follows: «... This translates Into a study ratof 4.1[f**™™™?
US 113, compared to the statewide average rate of 3.2 fatal acc/100mvm....
Comment 4:
could satisfy the purpose and need.
Response:
Park and Ride discussion will be eliminated from the
as not to discuss alternatives, prematurely. However'rt60artcuar project, as
and Ride potential and how it will affect the purpose and need of a particular p j
a project develops.
VI- 66
-------
Comment 5:
Page 10 of the purpose and need provides conclusions that improvements to US 113
would satisfy the purpose and need. Providing safer roadways'for travelers, relieving
severe congestion through year 2020 and reducing significantly high accident rates in
the northern study area are fine goals to have for the purpose and need and
environmental study. However, it is premature to conclude that improvements to US
113 is the solution to these goals. Providing solutions in the purpose and need stage o
a project constitutes a predetermination on the part of the State Highway
Administration. The revised purpose and need should not provide conclusions to a
study that has yet to" be completed.
Response:
The conclusion section of the Purpose and Need Statement will be eliminated from the
document, thus removing any implication of predetermination, on the part of the State
Highway Administration.
Comment 6:
Attachments to the purpose and need include pie charts and study worksheets with
information on accident types. Under Collision Types in the Season/Surface/Light
Collision Types pie charts, opposite direction collisions account for 56% of the accident
types. However, in the accident study worksheets, the largest number of collision type
overall for both the northern and southern portions of the study area is fixed object. To
determine the problems and solutions for the accident and fatality rates for this project,
these figures need to be clarified.
Response:
All pie charts, supplied as supporting documentation, depict statistics related to fatal
accidents only, whereas the accident study worksheet depicts statistics related to all
accident types.
VI- 6?
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENpV f; - *:
REGION III ..... V'
'"••"
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-4431
Louis H. Ege, Jr. . • '
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary .Engineering .__ _
—P O—-Box 717 — -
Baltimore, MD 21203-0717 .
Attn: Joseph R. Kresslein
Re: Maryland US 113 , Purpose and Need
Dear Mr. Ege:
EPA is responding to your respo:
1996) regarding the above referenced
___ ^ _ j_ ^K. ^^^ ^ ^*» ^i^^wnmon i fZ -
SE? 5 3 s-
r..l JO
you
566-2722.
Sincerely,
,anelle Algazi
NEPA Project Coordinator
VI-68
Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;. ^ -';;'. . ..
REGION III :/!T.Vr.LOr,--
841 Chestnut Building D! V; o'
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-4431
SEP J II 25 An J'J
September 5, 1996
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director — -==,, -——
Office of Planning and ""
Preliminary Engineering
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, MD 21203-0717 _
Attn: Joseph R. Kresslein_
Re: Maryland US 113, Purpose and Need
Dear Mr. Ege:
Thank you for the facimile that we recieved from Paul
Maloney, of Maryland State Highway Administra^^e°nf^P
The facimile contained the revised-purpose and need for MD US
113. EPA concurs with this version of the document.
If you have any further questions, you can reach me at (215)
566-2722.
• Sincerely, —
Danielle Algazi
NEPA Project Coordinator
VI-69
Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress
-------
Mr. Roy E. Denmark
US 113 Study - Purpose and Need Statement
Page Two
'Fill in cor^rftn»ft/comfpgrit point hem - Purpose and Need, -gfo,-
Please check one: _
*• '
.,„ . ._l .....—-... Concur (without comments) _ •— _ .:-.--.• -
j\ Concur (comments attached)
DO not concur (comments attached)
USJ^nvironme'ntal Protection Agency
LHE:PFM ~ --'
cc: Mr. LeRoy Carrigan
Mr. Louis H. Ege Jr
Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Ms. Gay Olsen
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
Ms. Renee Sige!
Ms. Lorraine Straw
Mr. Alan Straus
VI-70
-------
DEPARTMENT OF E
BALTIMORE DISTRICT, U.S. A8
REPLY TO
ATTENTION Of
BALTIMORE, MD 21203^171^ '•"t
DEC 15 10 ^'35
Operations Division
CENAB-OP-RX(MD SHA/US 113: MD 394 TO DELAWARE STATE LINE)
96-00132-9
Mr. Louis H. -Ege, Jr. .. .1 .... .'." ... _
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21203 "_11___
Dear Mr. Ege:
I am replying to your subject letter dated November 3, 1995,
requesting concurrence on the Purpose and Need for the US 113
Study, from MD 394 to the Delaware State line. The study area is
located in Worcester County, Maryland.
There is no clear purpose and need statement in the US 113
document provided for our concurrence. From the background
information supplied, it appears that the purpose and need is to
improve safety along the US 113 corridor from MD 394 to the
Delaware State line. The Corps of Engineers is not opposed to
safety improvements within the study area. However, the Corps is
currently unable to concur with this Purpose and Need document as
presently stated. Additional information is required to
determine the cause of the problems occurring within the study
area. The following information is requested.
a." A statement which clearly identifies the purpose and neec
for the study corridor. The purpose and need should be general
enough to allow for the development of an array of alternatives
to identify and solve the problem within the corridor.
b. According to the document, numerous spot improvements foi
safety have been completed within the study area. The location
and completion dates of these improvements were not noted.
Additionally, as indicated in the background information that was
provided, no study or statistics were completed to determine the
results of these safety improvements. The key factor of the
purpose and need statement appears to be safety. Therfore,
documentation regarding these improvements, such as location,
completion dates, and how well they are functioning, need to be
provided.
VI-71
-------
-2-
c. The traffic data Pided in toe document list
the
and need.
a. Accident information pr Wed is insufficient
S#35 ?ogrrc=irenraef ohe s^ area is
higher. _________ _ . .-.„..
e. Dualization of the highway has been mentioned
purpose . jand ; ;need document a;j,5?^|i^edeThis statement is
Sf accidents, specifically fatjj^!!sibie solutions or --- -
inappropriate at this time as the P°^s^JrS°tage of the NEPA
alternatives should be discussed at a ^^f^ose along with.
process. This document should °^Ys^;et5e project
during the NEPA analysis
to be
sssr
call Ms. Michele Gomez at (410)962-4343
Sincerely,
Keith A. Harris
Chief, Special Projects
Permits Section
cc: Mary Ann Boyer, EPA
Bill Schultz, FWS
VI-72
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. W
Secretary
Hal Kassof;
Administrator
March 5,1996
RE: Contract No. WO 720-101-170
US 113 Snow Hill to
Delaware State Line
_ PDMS No. 232084 _.'.
Mr. Keith A. Harris
Special Projects Section
U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers
P.O.Box 1715
Baltimore MD 21201
Dear Mr. Harris:
Thank you for your letter dated December 15, offering comments on the Purpose
and Need Statement (P+NS) for the US 113 project planning study. I have
attached the revised P+NS, summarized your concerns in the addendum and
prepared responses to each one.
After reviewing the responses, I am requesting that you sign the concurrence line
provided.
Should you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact
Joseph R. Kresstein at (410) 545-8550.
Very truly yours,
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Joseph R. Kresstein
Assistant Division Chief
Project Planning Division
VI-73.
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
Mr. Keith A. Harris
US 113 Study
Page Two
Concurrence:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Date
LHEiPFM
Enclosures (7)
cc: Mr. LeRoy Cam'gan
Mr. Louis H. Ege Jr.
Ms. GayOlsen
Ms. Cynthia Simpson
_' Mr. Alan Straus _
Ms. Lorraine Straw
VI-74
-------
Addendum
Comment a:
[ We request ] A statement which clearly identifies the purpose and need for the
study corridor. The purpose and need should be general enough to allow for the
development of an array of alternatives to identify and solve the problem within
the corridor. • "~ :. •"'"•••..:. .-.^-.^...^^—^
Response: Please refer to page three, paragraph one of the revised Purpose
and Need Statement
The Purpose and Need Statement has been revised and a concise purpose and
need identified.
Comment b:
According to the document, numerous spot improvements for safety have been
completed within the study area. The location and completion dates for these
improvements were not noted. Additionally, as indicated in the background
information that was provided, no study or statistics were completed to determine
the results of these safety improvements. The key factor of the purpose and
need statement seems to be safety. Therefore, documentation regarding these
improvements, such as location, completion dates, and how well they are
functioning need to be provided.
Response: Please refer to page eight, paragraph one of the revised
Purpose and Need Statement and appropriate attachments
A listing of the spot improvements, their locations, and their completion dates is
provided as a supplement to this document.
Analysis of the successfulness of the spot improvements would not be
appropriate at this time because they have not been in place long enough to
fairly determine effectiveness.
It should be noted that the improvements made to the intersections at MD 610,
MD 589, and Pitts Road were not intended to make the corridor as a whole safer.
Rather, the left turn lanes and acceleration and deceleration lanes at these
locations were intended to improve traffic operations at these particular locations.
In general, the spot improvements were designed to benefit certain spots along
the roadway. They should be seen as interim improvements that will improve
VI- 75
-------
particular locations until the US 1 13 Project Planning Study can be developed
and implemented.
Comment c:
The traffic data provided in the document lists the average
the study area by the northern and southern segments £ ;t
information is confusing because it compares ^jtag
year round with the design year ADTs for weekend days,
The corresponding table does not facilitate understanding of the conditions and
how it supports the purpose and need. -— -_.
Response: Ptease^fer to page four, TRAEBC, of the revised Purpose and
Need Statement
The ADT measures are represented to illustrate worst case scenarios • Jhe__
companions that are being made are 1 995 ADT vs. the 2020 forecasted ADT,
and the 1 995 summer ADT vs. the 2020 forecasted summer ADT. This
comparison is more clearly illustrated in the Revised Purpose and Need
Statement.
Comment d:
Accident information provided is insufficient as ft does
time of the accidents, the probable cause, and th
this information ft is not possible to determine the
solutions. Also, the statewide average accident rate rate
highways was not provided although ft was mentioned that the total accident rate
for the study area is higher.
Response: F/ease refer to page /fre, <<^^
and Need Statement and appropriate enclosures
An accident map and worksheet, which includes all pertinent details requested.
£ prided as an attachment The Purpose and Need Statement has been
revised to include, among other things, study rates and statewide rates for
accident "comparisons.
Comment e:
Dualization of the highway has been mentioned in
document as being needed to decrease the number of accidents
VI- 76
-------
fatalities. This statement is inappropriate at this time as the possible solutions or
alternatives should be discussed at a later stage of the NEPA process. This
document should only state the purpose along with documentation
demonstrating the need for the project. An alternative such as dualization
should not be discussed at this. time. The Corps will work with your office to
assist in the development of a list of potential alternatives to be discussed during
the NEPA analysis.
Response:
SHA will has eliminated from the document air reference to dualization as it
relates to alternatives to study as potential solutions. Any remaining reference to
dualization will only be in reference to the continuity of the roadway and how this
project is affected by such continuity. SHA will not discuss alternatives—
prematurely. _
VI-77
-------
•-»? 0 3 '* DEPARTMENT OF THE ARM Y
dBAtTIMORE'DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
£yr«7iV-'Vl- P.O.BOX171S
0»'"': BALTIMORE, MD 21203-1715
ATTENTION OF
Operations Division
Subject, CENAB-OP-RXIMD SHA/U.S. 113= MD 394 TO DELAWARE STATE
LINE) 96-00132-9
Maryland State Highway
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21203
Dear Mr. Ege: __ "'_._.
I a. replying to your ^ec^ letter dated March 5,^1996.
requesting °»r =°nu~f ?tu
-------
-2-
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence,
please call Ms. Michele Gomez at (410) 962-4343.
Sincerely/
Keith A. Harris
$TT. . chief,.. Special. Projects
Permits Section
cc: Renee Sdgel, FHWA
Mary Ann Boyer, EPA
Bill Schultz, FWS
VI-79
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Winstea
Secretary
Hal Kassoff
Administrator
RE:
June 17, 1996
Contract No. WO 720-101-170
US 113: Snow Hill to the
Delaware State Line •-.-..--•---
' No. 232084"- — :
Mr. Keith A. Harris
Special Projects Section ..... . ;__.
U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers
P.O.Box 1715 — ; -
Baltimore MD 21201
Attn: Mr. Vance Hobbs
* ' • ' ' -
Dear Mr. Harris: - ------
Thank youfbr your letter dated April 17, offering comments on the revised Purpose and
.Need Statement (P&NS) for the US 113 .project planning -^^^S^SL ::
been summarized in the attached erratta sheet and responses to each one , ham been
prepared. The revisions to the P&NS which you have recommended will be reflected in
the purpose and need discussion in the draft environmental document.
-After reviewing the responses, I am requesting that you sign the concurrence line
provided.
Should you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Joseph
R'. Kresslein at (410) 545-8550.
Very truly yours,
Louis H.Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
by:
VI-80
My telephone number is
R. Kresslein
Assistant Division Chief
Project Planning Division
(410) 545-8500
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
y 1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Milling Address: P.O. Box 717 . B
~~* AJJ— — . -rn-r M — »»- *»-« ---- ' °* ---
-------
Mr. Keith A. Harris
US 113 Study - Purpose and Need Statement
Page Two
Fill In concurrence/comment point here - Purpose and Need, etc,
Please check one:
«. '
Concur (without comments)
Concur (comments attached)
Do not concur (comments attached)
US Army Corps of Engineers
LHE:PFM
cc: Mr. LeRoy Carrigan
Mr. Louis H. Ege Jr.
Ms. Gay Olsen
Ms. Cynthia Simpson
Ms. Renee Sigel
Mr. Aian Straus
Ms. Lorraine Straw
Date
VI-81
-------
Addendum
Comment a:
demonstrate the supporting
^ep^oseofthisstudvistc^
from MD 394 to the Delaware ^*J^^«r,n the northern area. The '
number of fatal accidents (above the s^^.^9d% and is expected to be F by
Response:
The opening paragon o, the the Purpose and Need Sta^ent has been revised «o
read as follows:
The purpose
from Snow Hill to the
number of fatal aooidents
State
in the northern
^^
because of the high fatal accident rate
Comment b:
Response:
Combined statewide rates are amVed
roadway being analyzed '"
respective roadway sections: ie:
unique access
s
VI- 82
-------
corresponding percentage of section length to overall study area length. In this case,
96% of the 7.45 mile long northern section of US 113 is a two-lane undivided road with
no controls in place while 4% of the same section is a divided roadway with no controls
in place. In the southern section, 74% of the 16.1 mite long section of US 113 is a two-
lane undivided roadway with no controls in place and 26% is an undivided roadway with
partial controls in place.
Together the combined roadway sections measure 23.55 miles, eighty one percent of
which is a two-lane undivided roadway with no access controls in place, 18% is an
undivided roadway with partial controls in place and 1% is a divided roadway with no
controls in place. These percentages are then used to weight the respective roadway
section's accidents, based on the statewide average number of accidents for similarly
designed roadways.
Comment c:
Although the spot safety and traffic improvements along the corridor have not been in
place long enough to fairly determine their effectiveness, the Corps recommends that
these areas be examined during the project study. The study should determine if they
are improving the safety or traffic flow and if these improvements have adequately
addressed the purpose and need for the project or if additional work along the US 113
area needs to be done.
Response:
The second paragraph of the Background section discusses that almost all of the spot
improvements will have been in place for a full year during this summer. The State
Highway Administration agrees to study these improvements after they have been in
place for a year and will include a discussion of their effectiveness in the draft
environmental document However, the accident data used to generate the reports and
statistics used in the analysis will not be available until the fall due, to the time
necessary for the transfer of the accident reports from the responding state troopers
and the compilation of the information.
VI-83
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BALTIMORE DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1715
BALTIMORE, MD 21203-1715
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
July 9, 1996
Operations Division.
Subject: -CENAB-OP-BXOID SHA/U. S. 113 : .MD 394 TO. DELAWARE STATE
LINE) 96-00132-9 —-— -• --
•Mr "Louis H. Ecre. JlT. . .
olfice ol Planning and Preliminary, Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration _
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore , Maryland 21203 _
Dear Mr. Ege :
I am replying to your suMect
Co\mty, Maryland. ........ —
For Department of the Army purposes, _we |°^ur with the
purpose and need statement as revised to reaa as follows.
accidents (significantly above the stat^de ^^^ for the
northern area. In the summer months ., the Level ^ o£ ser^/ ^Q ^
analysis.
VI-84
-------
1 •
J •
-2-
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence,
please call Ms. Michele Gomez at (410) 962-4343.
Sincerely,
Keith A. Harris
Chief, Special Projects
Permits Section
cc: Renee §igel, FHWA
Mary Ann Bbyer, EPA
Bill Schultz, FWS
VI-85
-------
Mr. Keith A. Harris ^
US 1 13 Study - Purpose and Need Statement
Page Two
ti in
int here -
Please check one:
Concur (without comments)
Concur (comments attached) - Corps letter dated .7/9/96
Do not concur (comments attached)
LHE:PFM —
cc: Mr. LeRoy Carrigan
Mr. Louis H. Ege Jr.
Ms. GayOlsen
Ms. Cynthia Simpson
Ms: Renee Sigel
Mr. Alan Straus
Ms. Lorraine Straw
US Army Corps of Engineers
Date
VI-86
-------
Harris N. Glendening
Governor
John!
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401 .„.
December 11, 1995
Deput,
, Mr. Joseph R. Kresslein
Assistant Division Chief
Project Planning Division
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Mr. Kresslein:
Thank you for providing our Department an opportunity to review and comment on the US
113, Snow Hill to the Delaware State Line, Purpose and Need Study. After reviewing the submitta
we offer the following comments for your consideration:
1. Extensive wetlands exist along the US 113 corridor. Any impacts to these area
should be avoided. If it is impossible to avoid impacts to wetland areas mitigatioi
should be performed in the immediate area.
2. Previous correspondence to your office (dated July 6, 1989, January 17, 1990 am
May 9, 1995) have provided you with information on residence fish species
construction closures, and other fisheries data.
3. The Forest Service of the Department of Natural Resources submitted the following
comment:
The Maryland Reforestation Law, Natural Resources Article, Section 5-103, becam
law on January 1,1988. All highway construction projects by a government or by an;
other person using state funding are subject to the law when construction activitie
will clear one acre or more of the forest land.
VI-87
Telephone: (410) 974-2788
DNR TTY for the Deaf: (410) 974-3683
-------
Mr. Joseph R. Kresslein
December 12, 1995
Page 2
Before cutting or clearing of any forest land, the
•: - review to the appropriate Regional Forest Service offi,* ^^r^Z&n 543-6745. The
design stage. On the Eastern Shore of Maryland please contact ^W^^^S locationsMts,
request must include the site plan illustrating project location, esstog »««f**£ d
proposed cutting areas and unpacted acr^e for ^ ^^eeds to include a
reforestation/afforestation area (location and acreage), ine «*«* AdditionaUv for all
"Reforestation She Review" form (enclosed) with the top ^™£«£ ^er^fthe SHA
SHA roadway construction projects, project engineers nee° ^ c°™ g260 He ^u coordinate
Landscape Operations Division He can be w^JJL^ ^randum of Understanding.
reforestation requirements for all SHA projects per/D^R/SHA Memorandum
Should you have any questions please contact Larry Hughes of my at (410) 974-2788.
Sincerely,
Ray C. Dintaman, Jr., -Director
Environmental Review Unit
RCD:LEH
Enclosure
VI-88
-------
Parris ft Glendentng
Gocvrnor
MARYLAND O
Dec. 7, 1995
DIVISION
^ ^ ffl
Ronald, M. K>
•3lnoor
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
State Highway 'Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Dear Mr. Ege:
Staff at the Maryland Office S
•Sn-Frvrmat-ion on the Purpose and Need for the US
InoTSill So She Delaware state line. We understand the purpose
of the project would be to address the high fatality accident
rate in the northern segment and to provide highway system
continuity. Our comments on the information provided follow.
The Land Use discussion should include reference to the Economic
Growth Resource Protection and Planning Act. of 1992 since it is
required that state funded projects be reviewed for consistency
with the Act.
In the elaboration of the Planning Act visions, (Procedures for
State Project Review publication) access Control _ practices are
encouraged in rural areas to direct growth to existing population
centers. The Worcester County Comprehensive Plan has also
recognized access control as a strategy fc° Prevent unplanned The
strip commercial development and preserve highway capacity. The
purpose and need statement recognizes the impacts of the project
on agricultural land use and the natural environment. Those
?mpalts can best be addressed by assuring that the alternatives
studied for this project will help to direct growth to the
existing population centers.
Public transportation services have been discussed in the section
onModal Interrelationships. It would be useful to know whether
She fixed route service travels on US 113 the f requency of
service and number of daily trips. This information would be
more relevant to the project study.
in addressing safety concerns on US 113, it seems ifc .
important to know the results of the spot improvements that have
been made recently before determining what additional safety
improvements are needed.
VI- 89
301 West Preston Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21201-2365
Comprtbmsiv* Planning: (410) 225-4562 Fax.- 225-4480
-------
draft purpose and need for this project.
also note that references to Jones and Showell, as
.
should be used correctly in reference to the plan.
Please contact Christine Wells or me at (410) 225-4562 if there
are questions on these comments.
Sincerely /*t
**,»»- — — — — -r- + / "I
__i .>. &x£Zi
James T. Noonan
cc: Christine Wells, OP
Tom Weiss, OP Regional
VI-90
-------
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Northeast Region
U. S. Custom House
200 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
L7 6 (MAR-MR)
Maryland State Highway Administration
Regional and Intermodal Planning Division
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Re: PDMS #232061
WO-668-101-170
Dear Sir:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft purpose and
need statement for US 113. We hope the following comments are
useful to you.
This document should explain why the road needs to be four lanes,
who will benefit (i.e., long distance haulers, interstate
travellers, community residents in what towns, etc.), and what
the costs are (in tax dollars, noise, long-term maintenance,
social economy, etc; it should also describe how local economics
will benefit). The project seems to be justified now only
because it is listed in the state and county plans and might
improve safety.
Due to the projected impacts on resources, further analysis
should also:
include participation by the Lower Eastern Shore
Preservation Center at Salisbury State University, the Lowei
Eastern Shore Heritage Committee and the Pocomoke River
Alliance
include the results of a survey in the corridor of
historic resouces (especially landscapes), and drafts of
incentives and regulations which the county could adopt to
recognize the local value of historic landscapes and sites,
natural areas, and agricultural lands
VI-91
-------
identify a means to donate conservation easements and
lands to a certified land trust
and the watersheds of the coastal bays.
If you have any questions, please contact Don '
NortSeasVRegion and Project Coordinator, Lower Eastern Shore
Heritage Project at 215-597-1585.
«.
Sincerely.
Patricia E. Bentley (J
Environmental Compliance Review
Coordinator
VI-92
-------
MARYLAND
HISTORICAL
TRUST
PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT'
DIYIS'OK
1 10 35 DTK
November 30, 1995
Parris N. Glendenlng, Gove
Patricia J. Payne, Secre
Of Bee of Preservation Services
Mr. Joseph Kresslein, Assistant Division Chief
Project Planning Division
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street, P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
RE: Contract No. WO 720-101-170
US 113: MD 394 to the DE Line
Worcester County, Maryland
Dear Mr. Kresslein:
Thank you for your recent letter, dated 3 November 1995 and
received by the Trust on 8 November 1995, which supplied a copy of
the Purpose and .Need Statement for the above-referenced project.
The Purpose and' Need provides a general overview of the project's
background, existing conditions, and conclusions. As you know,
this project was dropped from consideration in the past on the
assumption that minor spot improvements' could resolve the safety
and congestion issues. Many spot improvements have been completed
ana others are planned; however, there have been no subsequent
studies to examine the effectiveness of these actions. We believe
that SHA should reevaluate the conditions and needs of the study
area, in light of the improvements made to date, as part of any
further planning for this project.
We understand that' SHA is conducting field investigations to
identify and evaluate cultural "resources within the project's area
of potential effects. We look forward to continued coordination
with SHA to complete the project's Section 106 consultation. If
you have questions or require additional information, please call
Ms. Elizabeth Hannold (for structures) at (410) 514-7636 or me (for
archeology) at (410) 514-7631. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
El^Sabeth
Administrator
Archeological Services
EJC/EAH/9502900 . '
cc: Ms. Mary Huie Ms. Cynthia Simpson
Dr. Charlie Hall VI-93 Ms. Rita Suffness
Division of Historical and Cultural Programs
100 Community Place • Crownsville, Maryland 21032 • (410) 51
The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) pledges to foster
the letter and spirit of the law for achieving equal housing opportunity in Maryland.
-------
N. Glendening
Governor
>».t C !'*'"
r". tl 7 •
43 f,1 '9$
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
John R. Griffin
Secretary
Ronald N. Youn.
Deputy Secretary
February 12, 1996
Mr. Joseph R. Kresslein
Assistant Division Chief
Project Planning Division
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Mr. Kresslein:
Thank you for providing our Department an opportunity to review and comment on the US
113, Snow Hill to the Delaware State Line, Purpose and Need Study. After reviewing the submittal
we offer the following comments for your consideration :
1. The Heritage & Wildlife Administration of the Department of Natural Resources submitted
the following information for your use:
Snow Hill USGS Quadrangle
Symplocos tinctoria
Carexjoorii
Leptoloma Cognatum
Potamogeton pusilius
Current Record
Sweetleaf
Historical Records
Cypress-swamp sedge
Fall witchgrass
Slender pondweed
Rare
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Extirpated
VI-94
Telephone: (410) 974-2788
DNR TTY for the Deaf: (410) 974-3683
-------
Mr. Joseph R. Kresslein
February 12, 1996
Page 2
Utricularia inflata
Atlides halesus
Public Landing USGS Quadrangle
Bidens discoidea
Centrosema virginianum
Galactia volubilis
Lupinus perennis
Rhynchosia tomentosa
Berlin USGS Quadrangle
Alnus maritima
Desmodium pauciflorum
Fuirena pumila
Paspalum dissectum
Platanthera blephariglottis
Swollen bladerwort
Great purple haristreak
Current Records
Swamp beggar-ticks
Spurred butterfly-pea
Downy milk pea
Wild lupine
Hairy snoutbean
Current Record
Seaside alder
Historical Records
Few-flowered tick-trefoil
Smooth fuirena
Walter's paspalum
White-fringed orchid
Endangered
Rare
Rare
Rare
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Rare
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Should you have any questions please contact Larry Hughes of my at (410) 974-2788.
Sincerely,
Ray C. Dintaman, Jr., Director
Environmental Review Unit
RCDrLEH
VI-95
-------
United States Department of the Interior £: ^
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
January 28,1997
'Jl
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
Re: US 113, Snow Hill to DE Line
Dear Mr. Ege:
Wehave received your request for concurrence on the Alternatives Retained for Further Study,
dated September 1996, for the proposed dualization of US 1 13, from Snow Hill to the Delaware
sSe Lu?e We were informed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that SU» Highway
Administration granted an extension until the jurisdictional determination of wetlands was
curbed, The field review of wetlands was completed on January 24, 1997, and we do concur
with the alternatives, although we have concerns that are discussed below.
Wetlands along Route 113 provide high value habitats for fish, amphibiar*. reptiles biroX and
mammals. Fish and wildlife use this habitats for nesting, forage, and shelter. Theforested
wetlands are critical habitats for many species, including feeding and resting areas for songbirds
during spring and fall migrations. Destruction of these habitats may cause a corresponding
reduction hi wildlife populations inhabiting these wetlands.
•Hie function of wetlands in the project area benefit everyone in the community. In an area
where^ockets of urbanization are creating more impervious surface area ^ncultoal fields
to* forested buffers, proper stormwater management becomes critical to streams. Wetlands can
pm^ormwater management by filtering nutrients, sediments, and contaminants from run-off
forr^Shealth^Sr supply" Problems in-stream, which may £ re lated to P«*«£
conditions, are already evident Steep banks with entrenched stream beds ^cates^ ion the
system and impaired conditions downstream. Existing stream crossings generaUy «*e not
the peak flow problem, though in some cases, dowr^reamerKteofculvertsrestnct
Future recorrmiend^or wiU mcludeoversized
paser,
structures for fish and wildlife passage and limiting use of nght-of-way to 80 feet
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) biologists have participated m
we have concern that the impacts to wetlands are considerably larger than initi
aor^ern alignment (4N) will clearly impact more forested wetlands than the southern route
VI- 96
-------
(3N). Although, considerable forested wetlands were also identified along the 3N alternative, the
amount of impacts appear to be significantly smaller. Both alternatives will have indirect
impacts to waters of the United States due to loss of wetlands and water quality, but 3N will have
fewer impacts because of the existing road structure. The Service's recommendations are:
• Modify alternate 3N to reduce impacts to wetlands
• Reevaluate the amount of wetland impacts based on the Corps jurisdictional
determination of wetlands
• Study Transportation Management System, taking into account recent safety
improvements
We appreciate the opportunity to provide information relevant to fish and wildlife resources. If
you have any questions on these comments, please.contact David W. Sutherland at (410) 573-
4535.
Sincerely,
cc:
COE, Baltimore, MD (Michele Gomez)
SHA, Baltimore, MD (Lorrine Strow)
FHA, Baltimore, MD (Mary Huie)
EPA, Philadelphia, PA (Danielle Algazi)
NMFS, Oxford, MD (John Nichols)
MDE, Baltimore, MD (Ray Dintiman)
John P.
Supervisor
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
VI-97
-------
Mr. Robert Zepp
US-113 from MD 394 to Delaware
Page Two
Concurrence with Alternates Retained for Detailed Study
Please check one:
G Concur (without comments)
t JB Concur (comments attached)
D Do not concur (comments attached)
U.S. Departs
Fish and Wl
Attachment
cc: Mr. Lee Canigan
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Ms. Gay Olsen
Ms. Renee Sigel
Ms. Cynthia Simpson
' Mr. Alan Straus
Ms. Lorraine Strow
Date
VI-98
-------
Mary/and Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Win
Secretary
Parker F. Wi
Administrator
February 27,1997
C
Mr. John P. Wolflin
Supervisor
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
U.S. Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
177 Admiral Coachrane Drive
Annapolis MD 21401
Dear Mr. Wolflin:
Thank you for your letter providing concurrence on Purpose and Need and Alternatives
Retained for Detailed Study.
The following discussion summarizes your comments and explains what information we are
developing to address your concerns:
Comment #1
The USFWhas concerns regarding the amount of impacts to the forested wetlands under all
Dualization alternatives. After the jun'sdictional wetland field review, the impacts may be
greater than initially assessed. Alternate 3N would cause less impacts to wetlands than
Alternate 4N Modified.
Following the jun'sdictional wetland determination, all wetlands were surveyed and plotted on
our maps. Wetland acreages of impacts were recalculated and shown in the Preliminary Draft
EIS, which was provided to you on February 19. We understand there may be slight change in
these numbers based on the upcoming field review of agricultural ditches. That information
will be provided to you as soon as it is available and will be addressed in the revised DEIS.
Also when a selected alternate has been identified, detailed design activities will minimize
impacts as much as possible. We will work closely with COE to avoid or minimize impacts to
the extent possible.
Comment #2 »
Modify Alternate 3N to reduce wetland impacts
Since the Alternates Meeting Alternate 3N was modified in order to minimize environmental
impacts. Additional wetland avoidance and minimization measures will be investigated and
this information will be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Comment #3
Study Transportation Management System (TSM) taking onto account recent safety
improvements.
VI-99
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
Mr. John P. Wolflin
Page Two
The traffic and accident analysis based on the TSM improvements will be included in the draft
document. In addition to those spot improvements implemented and programmed, a full range
of additional TSM improvements such as intersection improvements and adding tum-lanes and
acceleration and deceleration lanes are being evaluated under the proposed TSM alternates
(2Nand2S).
Installing jersey barrier along the median was not considered feasible since US 113 is a two-
lane roadway with no control of access and numerous intersections and driveways. A jersey
barrier may address to some extent the opposite direction collisions; however, it would severely
restrict access for area residents, making it necessary for many to make U-tums at
intersections. We feel this could result in an increase in other types of accidents.
Information addressing your comments will be included in the DEIS. We hope that this
information addresses your concerns. Your response should be addressed to the attention of
Ms. Gay Olsen in the Project Planning Division. Should you have any questions, please call
Mr. Joseph Kressiein at (410) 545-8550.
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
By: _Z—±2= • -^*y y\— .
Mr. Joseph Kressiein
Assistant Division Chief
Project Planning Division
cc: Mr. Roy Denmark (EPA) (w/incoming)
Mr. Ray Dintaman (DNR)
Mr. Elder Ghigiarelli (MDE)
Mr. Timothy E. Goodger (NMFS)
Mr. Keith Harris (COE)
Mr. J. Rootiey Little (MHT)
Mr. James T. Noonan (MOP)
Ms. Gay Olsen
Ms. R. Suseela Rajan
Ms. Renee Sigel (FHWA)
Ms. Cynthia Simpson
Mr. Robert Small
Ms. Lorraine Strow
Ms. Cynthia Wilkerson (NPS)
Mr. Jim Wynn
Mr. John Zanetti
Ms. Lisa Simmer (RK&K)
Mr. Robert Zepp (USFWS)
VI-100
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III "
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 19107^4431
January 31,1997
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
P.O. Box717
Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
RE: US 113 from MD 394 to the Delaware State Line, Worcester County, MD: Alternatives
Retained for Detailed Study.
Dear Mr. Ege:
The Environmental Protection Agency is responding to your request for our concurrence
on the description of the Alternates Retained for Detailed Study for the above referenced project.
We apologize for the delay in responding.
As currently presented in the study, we do not concur. The range of alternatives that are
being considered need to be expanded. We are interested in working with you to move forward
on this project through the NEPA/404 process. Given prior experience we believe that some of
our comments are based on reoccurring themes in response to your documents. This practice
only works to delay the process because of the need of your agency to respond to comments
through back and forth letter writing until concurrence has been obtained. Thus, we would like
to see an entire revised document to review so that we can concur without further complication
and to ensure the incorporation of our comments. Since reviews are based on coordination with
other agencies, the document should contain responses to all agency comments so that
agencies can promptly determine the results of the comment period and expedite the review.
Our detailed comments on U.S. 113 Alternates Retained are found below:
It is not clear from the alternates package whether the consideration of the
northern section as a separate alternative would be analyzed to fulfill the purpose
and need of the project, whether the dualization occurs on either the existing
alignment or on a new alignment "Considering the location of the northern section
versus the southern end, it seems that the northern end would have greater need
for upgrading, since the logical destination for the majority of the travelers would
be in the Ocean City area. It is als'o the area with the most potential for growth.
The environmental document should examine these factors and consider the
northern section alone to be dualized along with the combination of spot
improvements and/or Transportation Systems Management (TSM) possibilities for
the southern section to fulfill the purpose and need of the project.
We would strongly recommend providing additional alternatives that include a
combination of TSM and alignments throughout the whole length of the project
Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress
VI- 101
-------
study area.
The reasoning behind dropping Alternates 4N, from just norl *
north south of Showell on the west and the east side in the Showeil area
consideration as described on page 3 of the package was not stgrnficant enough
r
and give process its due, in accordance with NEPA.
As we have stated previously in our comments to the ••
U.S. 113.
Thank you for the opportunity ,to comment : If ^ .have
Danielle Algazi. She can be reached by phone at (215) 566-2722,
or by E-Mail at ALGAZl.DANIELLE@EPAMAILEPA.GOV.
Sincerely,
Richard V. P
Chief, Environmei
Protection Branch
cc: Michele Gomez, COE
William Schultz, FWS
Mary Huie, FHA
John Nichols, NMFS
Elder Ghigiarelli, MDE
Ray Dintaman, Md DNR
VI-102
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
Sta te High way A dministra tion
David L. Win
Secretary
Parker F. Wilt
Administrator
February 24,1997
RE: Contract No. WO 720B11
US 113 from Snow Hill to
the Delaware State Line
Mr. Richard V. Pepino
Chief, Environmental Protection Branch
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia PA 19107-4431
Dear Mr. Pepino:
Thank you for your letter providing comments on the Alternates Retained for Detailed Study for
US 113 improvements from Snow Hill to the Delaware State Line.
We appreciate your cooperation in offering to work with us to expedite the review process and
to move this project forward through the NEPA/404 process. We agree with you that
responding to your comments by letter until concurrence is obtained could delay the process.
We met with Ms. Danielle Algazi on February 13 to discuss the project and address most of
your concerns, and subsequently provided her with the preliminary version of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement at the interagency review meeting on February 19. This
document contains a revised discussion of Alternates Retained for Detailed Study.
Your comments on the Alternates Retained for Detailed Study are summarized below with our
response following:
Comment #1.
Will alternates for the southern and the northern sections be evaluated separately?
The northern section of US 113 carries more traffic and is the area with greater potential for
growth. Cons/o'er spot improvements/or Transportation System Management (TSM) for the
southern section.
It is true that traffic volumes are much higher in the northern section and will result in future
traffic congestion and declining levels of service. However, the more immediate need in the
project area is to improve safety conditions throughout the entire route. Head-on collisions and
fatalities are a concern in both the northern and southern sections. Although we will investigate
the feasibility of a full range of TSM improvements, we believe that neither the currently
programmed spot improvements, nor the TSM alternates will adequately address the
V/- 103
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
Mr. Richard V. Pepino
February 21, 1997
Page Two
safety problem. US 113 north of the Delaware State Line as well as south of Snow Hill and
through the Berlin area is a four-lane divided highway. This being the major north-south route in
Worcester County, we believe that dualizing the roadway would be the most effective way to
reduce the high percentage of opposite direction collisions throughout both study sections of
US 113. Two of the three most recent fatal accidents occurred in the southern study area and
involved vehicle collisions with oncomming traffic.
Comment #2
EPA recommends providing additional alternatives, including a combination of TSM and
alignments for the entire study length.
In the northern area we have included an additional alternate which combines portions of both
Alternate 3N and 4N Modified in an effort to find a solution that minimizes environmental
impacts to the extent possible. The TSM alternate will be evaluated as a "stand-alone"
improvement individually in both the northern and southern study areas. In addition, the option
of combining the TSM with the dualization alternates and staging improvements will also be
investigated.
Comment#3
The reasoning behind dropping portions of Alternate 4 was not significant. These alternatives
should be further discussed in the environmental document.
Based on a preliminary assessment of costs using a base cost of $4.8 million per mile,
Alternates 4N and 4N Option A are approximately equal in cost from MD 90 to south of Showell.
The Alternate 4N alignment would be approximately 400 feet longer than Alternate 4N Modified
resulting in an additional cost of $0.3 million. Cost however, was not the only basis for
eliminating this segment of the 4N alternate. The Alternate 4N alignment west of the existing
roadway from MD 90 to South of Showell has greater impacts both to woodlands and farmland
than Alternate 4N Modified which was retained. Alternate 4N would have required taking
approximately 2.4 acres more woodlands and 5.5 acres more farmland than Alternate 4N
Modified and provides no offsetting benefits over Alternative 4N Modified.
The 4N Modified alignment just north of MD 90 is located closer to the existing US 113
alignment, thereby avoiding the need to bisect large properties. The 4N alignment splits four
properties between MD 90 to south of.Showell, whereas Alternate 4N Modified affects only the
edges of properties adjacent to the roadway, thereby not splitting any properties. One of the
properties that would be bisected by Alternative 4N is the Rancho Fiesta Equestrian Farm.
These impacts would render the entire farm inoperable. Under Alternate 4N, SHA would own
property on the east and west of US 113 which could not be used in conjunction with any
highway improvements.
Comment #4
Spot improvements should be closely examined. Show a correlation between spot
improvements and a reduction in accidents in-the environmental document
VI-104
-------
Mr. Richard V. Pepino
February 24,1997
Page Three
'ISt °f Ot lmProvements i
under the No-Build Alternate and TSM
ed in *" Prelimlnai* Draft En
as well as an accident analysis based on spot improvements.
We hope that this information addresses your concerns and are again requesting your
aTdes?eS
anfquSons nl±, S?M "^ Gahy °lsen,in the Pr°Ject Plan™9 Division. Should you have
any questions, please call Mr. Joseph Kresslein at (41 0) 545-8550.
Very truly yours
cc:
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Joseph R. Kressle'i
Assistant Division Chief
Project Planning Division
Mr. Roy Denmark (EPA)
Mr. Ray Dintaman (DNR)
Mr. Elder Ghigiarelli (MDE)
Mr. Timothy E. Goodger (NMFS)
Mr. Keith Harris (COE)
Mr. J. Rodney Little (MHT)
Mr. James T. Noonan (MOP)
Ms. Gay Qlsen
Ms. R. Suseela Raj'an
Ms. Renee Sigel (FHWA)
Ms. Cynthia Simpson
Mr. Robert Small
Ms. Lorraine Straw
Ms. Cynthia Wilkerson (NPS)
Mr. Jim Wynn
Mr. John Zanetti
Ms. Lisa Zeimer (RK&K)
Mr. Robert Zepp (USFWS)
Mr. David Wallace (RK&K)
(w/incoming & attachment)
VI- 105
-------
y
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
841 Chestnut Building -.. ~, •->
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-4431 ,,
March 31, 1997
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
RE: US 113 from MD 394 to the Delaware State Line, Worcester County, MD: Pie-Draft
EIS, February 19, 1997.
Dear Mr. Ege:
1^
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
r0^«a^
required to expedite the project.
- Alternatives 4N and 3N/4N combination should include provisions to avo.d
VM05a
Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress
-------
impacts to wetlands during the alignment configuration phases of the project.
-Each alternative should provide detailed information to support findings of
improved safety conditions and the correlation between the improvements on the
road and predicted increased safety.
EPA also has concerns about the environmental impacts that were not
addressed in the Pre-DEIS. This project has the potential to impact both Maryland's
Coastal Bay and the Pocomoke River/Chesapeake Bay watershed. There are
approximately 20 stream and tributary crossings for the proposed US 1 13 build
alternatives. The wetlands connected with these crossings provide valued watershed
functions that are not easily replicated. One of these wetlands is dominated by bald
cypress, which is a relatively unique resource in Maryland and associated with the
Pocomoke watershed system. The extent of value of these systems and the attempt
to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce and compensate for these impacts were not
adequately documented. The indirect impacts of the potential growth associated with
U.S. 113 and the Worcester County Comprehensive Plan and the potential to impact
environmental resources and the future land use of the County were not evaluated in
the document. Finally, incremental impacts of the proposed action on these
watersheds, when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future
actions have not been addressed in the document. This cumulative impact assessment
should provide a historical perspective of land use in the watershed area. This
information could be obtained by coordinating closely with Maryland's Office of
Planning and Worcester County Planning Office.
Our detailed comments are enclosed. We are looking forward to reviewing the
Draft EIS document. Thank you for the opportunity to comment early in the process. If
you have any questions, please contact Danielle Algazi. She can be reached by phone
at (215) 566-2722, by facsimile at (215) 566-2782 or by E-Mail at
ALGAZI.DANIELLE@EPAMAILEPA.GOV.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
cc: Michele Gomez, COE
David Sutherland, FWS
Mary Huie, FHA
John Nichols, NMFS
Elder Ghigiarelli, MDE
RichaVd V.
Chief, Environmental Protection Branch
Larry Hughes, DNR
Phil Hager, Worcester County Planning
Ray Dintaman, DNR
Christine Wells, MOP
Al Kampmeyer, MDE Salisbury
VMOSb
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY .»-„... ,^'
BALTIMORE DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS -• •-• r
P.O. BOX 1715 f-1'•;•••
BALTIMORE, MD 21203-1715
| -
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Operations Division
Subject: CENAB-OP-RX(MD SHA/US 113:
LINE) 96-00132-9
MD 394 TO DELAWARE STATE
Mr, Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Mr. Ege:
I am replying to your subject letter dated October 11, 1996,
requesting our concurrence on the Alternatives Retained for Further
Study for the US 113 Study located in Worcester County, Maryland.
Ms. Cynthia Simpson of your office granted the Corps an extension
of time on providing our response until after the jurisdictional
determination has been completed for this study.
The Corps has concerns regarding the amount of environmental
impact which will occur with Alternate 4N Modified. The amount of
wetlands to be altered with this, alternate was estimated at 28.5
acres. During the jurisdictional determination, more wetlands than
was originally mapped by the SHA were found along this alternate.
While the Corps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assisted the
SHA in correcting the wetland lines in some of these areas, there
is still a fair amount of wetlands which have not been delineated.
Therefore, it can be assumed that the 28.5 acres of potential
impact will increase.
*
Alternate 3N will also have a large number of environmental
impacts associated with it, mainly residential and^ commercial
displacements. The wetland impacts associated with this alternate
may also increase from the estimated 10.3 acres as a result of the
jurisdictional determination.
The archaeological and historic issues which need to be
addressed through Section 106, also have not been adequately
identified, as per the November 15, 1996 letter from Maryland
Historical Trust. These issues need to be addressed before we can.
determine which alternates will have the least environmental
impact.
Because of the great amount of environmental impacts
associated with both the 3N and 4N Modified alternates, we
recommend that the SHA investigate various combinations of these
two alternates which satisfy the project purpose and reduce the
VI-106
-------
amount of overall environmental impacts, including impacts to
waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands.
The Corps also recommends that Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) be studied which take into account the safety and
traffic improvements which were previously implemented by theSHA,
as well as investigate other safety i^rov^^tsj*^^11^;?^J"
the purpose and need of the US 113 Study- Other TSM alternates
which could be studied would include turning lanes,
acceleration/deceleration lanes, medians with Dersey carrier
dividers, intersection improvements, and rumble strips along
shoulders and at major intersections.
£f you-have any questions regarding this 'correspondence,
please call Michele Gomez at (410) 962-4343.
Sincerely,
Keith A. Harris
Chief, Special Projects
Permits Section
cc: FHWA
USFWS
EPA
NMFS
MDE-Salisbury
DNR-ERU
VI- 107
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
February 25,1997
RE: Contract No. WO 720B11
US 113 from Snow Hill
to the Delaware State Line
Mr. Keith Harris
Chief, Special Projects
Permits Section
US Army Corps of Engineers
Baltimore District
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore MD 21203-1715
Dear Mr. Harris:
Thank you for your letter providing comments on the Alternatives Retained for Detailed
Study for the US 113 project from Snow Hill to the Delaware State Line.
The following discussion summarizes your comments and explains what information we
are developing to address your concerns:
Comment #1
The COEhas concerns regarding the amount of wetland impacts, since more wetlands
were identified as a result of the jurisdictional determination.
Following the jurisdictional wetland determination, all wetlands were surveyed and
plotted on our maps. Wetland impact acreage was recalculated and shown in the
preliminary Draft EIS, which was provided to Ms. Michelle Gomez on February 19. We
understand that there may be slight changes in these figures based on the results of
upcoming field review of agricultural ditches. That information will be provided to you as
soon as it is available and will be addressed in the revised DEIS. Also when a selected
alternate has been identified detail design activities will minimize impacts as much as
possible. We will work closely with COE to avoid or minimize impacts to the extent
possible.
Comment #2
Alternate 3N has a large number of relocations as well as a large amount ofwetiand
impacts. Wetland impacts may have increased after the Jurisdictional determination.
It is true Alternate 3N has a large number of displacements (24 residential/
6 commercial) since it follows the existing alignment. It would also result in
approximately 8 acres of wetland impacts.
VI- 108
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street - Baltimore, Maryland 212O2
-------
Comment #3
Archeological and historical issues need to be addressed.
Mr. Keith Harris
Page Two
Identification and evaluation of historic standing structures and archeological resources
in the study area have been completed. Coordination with Maryland Historical Trust
(MHT) is underway. Seven structures identified in the study area were either listed on
or are eligible for the National Register of Historical Places. The preliminary DEIS
includes more detailed information regarding both historic standing structures and
archeological resources. The final version of the DEIS will reflect the results of the MHT
coordination.
Comment #4
Investigate combinations of alignments in order to reduce environmental impacts.
We have included a combination alternate which uses portions of Alternate 3N and 4N
Modified for the northern section. For the southern section, the No-Build, TSM (2S), and
Dualization along the existing alignment (3S) are under consideration. Combinations of
the various southern alternates with northern alternates are also available as mentioned
in the preliminary DEIS.
Comment #5
The results of the TSM and spot improvements currently being implemented need to be
considered and TSM improvements which address the project purpose and need should
be studied. Consider additional TSM improvements such as acceleration/deceleration
lanes, median jersey barrier, rumble strips, and intersection improvements.
The traffic and accident analysis based on the TSM improvements will be included in the
draft document. In addition to those spot improvements implemented and
programmed, a full range of additional TSM improvements such as intersection
improvements and adding tum-Ianes and acceleration and deceleration lanes are being
evaluated under the proposed TSM alternates (2N and 2S).
Installing jersey barrier along the median was not considered feasible since US 113 is a
two-lane roadway with no control of access and numerous intersections and driveways.
A jersey barrier may address to some extent the opposite direction collisions; however,
it would severely restrict access for area residents, making it necessary for many to
make U-tums at intersections. We feel this could result in an increase in other types of
accidents.
Information addressing your comments will be included in the DEIS. We hope that this
information addresses your concerns and are again requesting your concurrence with
the Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study. Your response should be addressed to the
attention of Ms. Gay Olsen in the Project Planning Division. Should you have any
questions, please call Mr. Joseph Kresslein at (410) 545-8550.
VI-109
-------
Mr. Keith Harris
Page Three
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
iifninary Engineering
Mr. Joseph Kre:
Assistant Divisio
Project Planning
hief
Division
cc: Mr. Roy Denmark (EPA)
Mr. Ray Dintaman (DNR)
Mr. Elder Ghigiareili (MDE)
Mr. Timothy E. Goodger (NMFS)
Mr. Keith Harris (COE)
Mr. J. Rodney Little (MHT)
Mr. James T. Noonan (MOP)
Ms. Gay Olsen
Ms. R. Suseela Rajan
Ms. Renee Sigel (FHWA)
Ms. Cynthia Simpson
Mr. Robert Small
Ms. Lorraine Strow
Ms. Cynthia Wilkerson (NPS)
Mr. Jim Wynn
Mr. John Zanetti
Ms. Lisa Zimmer (RK&K)
Mr. Robert Zepp (USFWS)
(w/incoming & attachment)
VI-110
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ;; rj; .. = •'•.;
BALTIMORE DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS-, ? ,. .-.. ;
P.O.80X1715 ' •'•.•".•. ^ . '
BALTIMORE, MD 21203-1715 '„. ! . ' '
Af".i \
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Operations Division
Subject: US 1X3 CORSIDO* STUDY F*0« MD 394 TO THE DELAWARE STATE
LINE
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr. , . . . v. _
Maryland State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
•-,.
Dear Mr. Ege: •
ssrs.'s.
in Worcester County,' Maryland.
alternates will be retained.
1. Alternates IS and IN-No Build
2. Alternates 2S and 2N-Basic Transportation Systems Management
3 . Alternates 2S
* TWO lane highway along existing aliment : with ,20 Joot median,
median barrier, passing lanes, "and 60 mph design speed
4. Alternates 3S and 3N
foo;
foo
design^ speed, 3S will have a 60 mph design speed
* Four lane dualized highway along existing alignment with 3
foot median
5. Alternate 4N modified
* Four.- lane dualized highway on new alignment with 20 foe
median
* Four lane dualized highway on new alignment with 34 foe
median
VI-111
-------
6. Alternate 3N/4N combination
* Four lane dualized highway on existing alignment with partial
new location; 20 foot median
* Four lane dualized highway on existing alignment with partial
new location; 34 foot median
The Corps concurs with these Alternates Retained for Further
Study provided that the road alignment, for all alternates_, wil^be
shifted to avoid or minimize impacts to waters of the US, including
jurisdictional wetlands, displacements of residences or businesses
and conservation of prime agricultural lands.
If you have any questions concerning this correspondence,
please call-Ms. Michele Gomez at (410) 962-4343
Sincerely,
£>f Keith A. Harris
Chief, Special> Proj ects
Permits Section
cc: Danielle Algazi, EPA
Renee Siegel, FHWA .
John Nichols, NMFS
David Sutherland, FWS
Beth Cole, MHT
Al Kampmeyer, MDE (Salisbury)
Larry Hughes, DNR
VI- 112
-------
Parris N. Glendenlng
Governor
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
November 21,1996
JohnR
Sta
Carolyn
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
(Attn: Ms. Gay Olsen)
RE: Project No. WO 720B11; US 113 from MD 394 to the Delaware State Line; Worcester
County, MD
Dear Mr. Ege:
Thankyou&rtheopportunitytoreviewme Alternatives *^^»*^^^.
US 113 Study. PleasefmdattachedmeDepar^^ signed concurrence sheet
If you should have any additional questions concerning the Departments concurrence with the
subject alternatives, please call me at 410-974-2788.
Sincerely,
Ray C. Dintaman, Jr., Director
Environmental Review Unit
RCD
VI- 113
Telephone: (410) 974-2388
DNR TTY for the Deaf: (410) 974-3683
-------
Mr. Ray Dintaman
US 113 from MD 394 to Delaware
Page Two
Concurrence with Alternates Retained for Detailed Study:
Please check one: .
Concur (without comments)
Concur (comments attached)
Do not concur (comments attached)
jf^ou c.^uc^ro^^ \k.
Maryland Dept of Natural Resources
Date
Attachment
cc: Mr. Lee Carrigan
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Ms. Gay Olsen
Ms. Renee Sigel
Ms. Cynthia Simpson
Mr. Alan Straus
Ms. Lorraine Straw
VI- 114
-------
P&rris
MARYLAND Office of Plan-ring. .... • ...»
'., . • t ?•-•.' •'•*"• j;J ~2
November 20,1996
• t.-!.-
Jtonatd M. Kr
Dtnaar
C
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning & Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Attention: Ms. Gay Olsen
Dear Mr. Ege:
Staff at the Maryland Office of Planning have reviewed the information provided in the description of
AlternatesRetainedforDetaDedStudyfortfaeUSllSStudy. Our comments on Inadequacy of the
information are provided herein. We have also included our comments regarding consistency of the alternates
with the Economic Growth Resource Protection and Planning Act However, we must clarify that it is toe
responsibility of MDOT to make "the determination of consistency" as required in Executive Order
01.0U99Z27.
Adequacy of Information: ' • ' ' . , . -
There is additional information requested which wul help us to evaluate the recommended alternates for
the US 113 Project: - :
Access control policies. There is no discussion on the access control policies intended to be included as
part of the TSM strategy.
It is not clear from the information provided if the TSM improvements would provide satisfactory results
for improving safety and reducing traffic congestion. Clarification on what the TSM improvements would
accomplish should be provided.
Mformation on me completed and ongoing spot improvements for US 113 within me study area should be
provided, (e.g.. project locations, safety issues addressed, deficiencies corrected, expected improvement
results, etc.). Since mere are two systems preservation projects for US 113 in the draft 1997 CTP. we
would like to understand if diey win address some of me identified safety issues. There are projectstor
resurfacing US 113 and adding left turn lanes and acceleration /deceleration lanes identified in die CTP. 1
they are considered to be pan of die No-Build Alternate, men are we correct to. understanding mat they
wifl not provide "any significant improvements" to capacity or reduce die accident rate?
If cost is the basis for dropping a portion of Alternate 4N, then me estimated costs of each of me
alternates should be provided to allow for a comparison.
The following comments relate to die consistency of the recommended alternates wim the Maryland
Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act of 1992.
VI- 115
301 Vat Prtston Stmt • BalHmort. Maryland 21201-2365
Contpnlitastvu Plaaningt (410) 233-4562 Foe 22S-44SO
-------
TSM Alternates The SHA's effort to improve.system management on US 113 particularly for safety •
improvements, are consistent with the Visions of the Planning Act and state policies to maximize the use
of existing transportation facilities. To be consistent with Worcester County's 1989 Comprehensive Plan
policy, to preserve capacity on US 113, access management strategies should be included in the TSM
alternate. The 1992 Worcester County Zoning and Subdivision Control Article requires access ^
management on the County's anerials and collectors. The Article also provides access point design
standards.
Alternate 3N and 4N Modified These alternates would widen the existing US 113 to a four-fane divided
highway. This portion of US 113 north of Berlin is within the County's planned development area. These
alternates would signincandy improve roadway safety and would facilitate development hnhe area. To
be consistent with County policy, die alternates must be designed to prevent strip commercial development
and minimize driveway access points. The 1989 County Comprehensive Development Plan addressed
strategies to limit commercial development to selected areas along US 113 to preserve its capacty.
Alternate 4N would impact fewer residential and commercial properties but has greater adverse impact on
agriculture and natural resources. Information on estimated costs for these Alternates would assist in our
evaluation.
Alternate 3S This alternate would widen existing US 113 to a four-lane divided highway in order to
significantly improve the safety conditions. Based on information, provided hi the Purpose and Need
Statement, traffic has not been the major problem for mis portion of US 113, nor would it be for the next
two decades. This alternate would have significant agricultural and environmental impacts and growdi
management implications since this portion of US 113 runs through, the County's primary agricultural and
conservation, areas. To mmmm the adverse impacts this widening and upgrade might have on,
agricultural lands anri grmvrh management, and to be consistent With County policy ^
managemenryconrrol need to be included in the project. Increasing roadway capacity in agriculture areas
without access control/management can encourage sprawl The Planning Act Visions encourage access
control practices in rural areas to direct growdi to suitable areas.
Please contact Christine Wells or me at (410) 767-4562 if mere are questions on the above comments.
James T. Noonan
cc: Christine Wells, OP
Tom Weiss, OP Regional
VI- 116
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Wi:
Secretary
Parker F. Wi
Administrator
February 20, 1997
Re: Project No. WO720B11
US 113 from Snow Hill to the
Delaware State Line
Worcester County, Maryland
Mr. James T. Noonan
Maryland Office of Planning
301 West Preston Street
Baltimore MD 21201-2365
Dear Mr. Noonan,
Thank you for your review and comment on the Alternatives Retained for
Detailed Study for the proposed dualization of US 113 from Snow Hill to the Delaware
State Line in Worcester County.
The following discussion summarizes the comments in your November 25, 1996
letter and we have developed information in response which we feel addresses your
concerns.
Comment #1: There is no discussion of access control policies included as part of the
TSM strategy.
Access to existing properties must be maintained, however future policy along the
corridor will focus on minimizing the number of entrances where applicable. This policy
of minimizing any future driveway access points will be implemented with any of the
build alternatives.
Numerous access points can be eliminated under Alternative 4N Modified since
portions of this alignment will be on new location. Sections of the existing roadway that
will no longer be utilized as mainline US 113 will be designed as service roads, thereby
minimizing the number of access points on mainline US 113. Alternatives 3S and 3N
propose dualizing the existing alignment, therefore decreasing the number of access
points will be more challenging for this alternative. Under the TSM Alternative, only
spot safety improvements are proposed, however the feasibility of consolidating existing
entrances will be investigated.
(410) 545-8500
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
VI- 117
-------
Mr. James T. Noonan
US 113 from Snow Hill to
the Delaware State Line
Page Two
Comment #2: It Is not clear whether TSM improvements would provide satisfactory
results for improving safety and reducing traffic congestion.
The enclosed table highlights the TSM improvements which are programmed to be
implemented with the No-Build Alternative and those improvements that will be included
under Alternative 2. The currently programmed improvements will provide some interim
safety measures. During the development of the alternatives retained for detailed
study, we will investigate which TSM measures will provide optimum improvements in
the corridor and will evaluate their effectiveness in meeting the full range of project
needs. It should also be noted that many of the improvements included in Alternative 2
could also be included along with the design of the other alternatives.
Comment #3: If cost is used as a basis for dropping a portion of Alternative 4N, then
estimated costs of each alternative should be provided for comparison.
Based on a preliminary assessment of costs using a base cost of $4.8 million per mile,
Alternatives 4N and 4N Option A are approximately equal in cost from MD 90 to south
of Showell. The Alternative 4N alignment would be approximately 400 feet longer than
Alternative 4N Modified resulting in an additional cost of approximately $0.3 million over
that alternative. Cost however, was not the singular basis for eliminating this segment
of the 4N alternative.
The Alternative 4N alignment west of the existing roadway from MD 90 to South of
Showell has greater impacts both to woodlands and farmland then Alternative 4N
Modified which was retained. Alternative 4N would have required taking approximately
2.4 acres more woodlands and 5.5 acres more farmland than Alternative 4N Modified
and provides no offsetting benefits over Alternative 4N Modified.
The 4N alignment splits four properties between MD 90 to south of Showell whereas 4N
Modified is located closer to the existing alignment only affecting the edges of
properties adjacent to the roadway and not splitting any properties. One of the
properties that would be bisected by Alternative 4N is the Rancho Fiesta Equestrian
Farm. These impacts to the farm would render the entire farm inoperable. Under
Alternative 4N, SHA would have to purchase the entire property which extends east
and west of US 113, which is far in excess of what is required for highway
improvements.
VI- 118
-------
Mr. James T. Noonan
US 113 from Snow Hill to
the Delaware State Line
Page Three
Information addressing your comments will be included in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). We hope that this information addresses your
concerns. We also requesting your evaluation of the Alternates Retained for Detailed
Study for consistency with the Maryland Economic Growth Resource Protection and
Planning Act of 1992. Should you have any questions, please call Mr. Joseph
Kresslein at (410) 545-8550.
Sincerely,
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
LHE:CM
cc:
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Ms.
Ms.
Ms.
Mr.
Ms.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Jose]
Assistant Division Chief
Project Planning Division
Roy Denmark (EPA) (w/incoming & attachment)
Ray Dintaman (DNR)
Eider Ghigiarelli (MDE)
Timothy E. Goodger (NMFS)
Keith Hams (COE)
J. Rodney Little (MHT)
Gay Olsen
R. Suseela Rajan
Renee Sigel (FHWA)
Cynthia Simpson
Robert Small
Lorraine Straw "
Cynthia Wilkerson (NPS)
Jim Wynn "
John Zanetti "
Lisa Zeimer (RK&K)
Robert Zepp (USFWS)
VI- 119
-------
STATE
(/
-V
xx>
FOREST \
US 113 IMPROVEMENTS STUDY
No Build and ISM
Improvement Locations
SOUTHERN STUDY AREA
AdmlnitBxiion
April 1997
Rgure
II-2A
VI- 120
-------
eo
.: P
eo
. 2
ao
o £•
II
i§
a M||
11
•s =1
II
« ~
"& S
E c
o a
U E
*««
en
>
e to
to - '
•S e
to
-
te
V)
ai
CS
cn
— —
3
«
tn
™*
a
tn
•*•
i
-=
E
a
•••
i
c _
B I ""
VI- 121
-------
I ft-
M ' * >'
Lr-'N
US 113 IMPROVEMENTS STUDY
No Build and TSM
Improvement Locations
SOUTHERN STUDY AREA
VI- 122
-------
-------
IMPROVEMENTS STUDY
Build
Improvement
SOUTHERN STUDY
Locations
VI-124
-------
CU
•a o
<3 ™
s g
o —
•o o
c
on
•1-2 S
2
£ c S
M SO a>
.. -a
en a
•s ,5
in OS
o es
™ c
eo i
60 *2
ta
O)
-------
I
I
a
B
•B
VI- 126
-------
DELAWARE smaot ceo»tv
US 113 IMPROVEMENTS STUDY
No Build and TSM
Improvement Locations
NORTHERN STUDY AREA
VI- 127
-------
E
a>
I
C.
•a
es
I
II
If -*J
c
7
U
£
a
en
i
s
so
•^
JE'
.y
o
e
V)
"n
e
^3
S
OS
eo
c
J
g
"eb
t:
V)
a
«n
en
en
,
1 1
c c
e: a
a. c.
Ihclarvis Road/Dulning
rseclion;
southbound US 113 left
o •*
O •» W u
~ C 3 c
g ~ is J
^ a S c
0 O O i-
cs ei U 5
•^
o
C2
pi
>
,«
^
|
eo
e
o
^
en
en
NO
en
VI- 128
-------
-------
MflR 14 '97 1Z:27PM MINERflLS OIL ftND GftS DIV
P. 2/3
IDE
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
2500 Broening Highway • Baltimore, Maryland 21224
(410) 631-3000
is N. Glendening Jane T. Nishida
trnor Secretary
xisn
March 14, 1997
Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Assistant Division Chief
Project Planning Division
State Highway Administration
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Dear Mr. Kresslein:
I am responding to your request for concurrence on the
Alternates Retained for Detailed Study for the U.S. 113 project
in Worcester County from south of Snow Hill to the Delaware State
Line, The study area for the project consists of two sections.
The southern study area extends from the existing dualized
portion of U.S. 113 just south of Snow Hill to the existing
dualized portion of U.S. 113 just south of Berlin. The northern
study area extends from the existing dualized portion of U.S. 113
just north of Berlin to the Delaware state Line.
In October, 1996, a package describing the alternatives to
be carried forward for detailed study was distributed to the
review agencies, since that time, a combination alternative has
been added that consists of portions of the initial two
dualization alternatives.'
The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) concurs
with the modified set of alternatives for detailed study as
presented in the Preliminary Draft EIS for the project which was ,
distributed on February 19, 1997. These include No-Build
(Alternative IS and IN); Transportation System Management
(Alternative 2S and 2N); and the following dualization
alternatives: Dualization Along Existing Alignment (Alternatives
3S and 3N); Dualization on New Alignment (Alternative 4N
modified) ; and Combination Alternative (Alternative 4N/3N) .
As the study progresses, MDE recommends that SHA continue to
examine potential combination(s) of alternatives. This will
result in the selection of an alternative that minimizes
environmental and social impacts, while still accomplishing the
project's purpose and need.
VI- 130
"Together We Can Clean Up'-
-------
14 '97 1Z:E8R1 MINERALS OIL flND GPS DIV
P. 3/3
Mr. Joseph Kresslein :
Page 2
8091.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (410) 631-
Sincerely,
Elder A. Ghiolaielli, jr.
Chief, Coastal done Consistency
EAGJrrcraa
cc: Gary Setzer
Terry Clark/Steve Dawson
VI- 131
-------
MDE
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
2500 Broening Highway • Baltimore, Maryland 21224
(410)631-3000
urris N. Glendening
3vernor
Jane T. Nishida
Secretary
March 27, 1997
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr. z-.? •
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering " .1
State Highway Administration r ' ••
707 North Calvert Street . 7.,'
Baltimore, MD 21202 ' 1:
Dear Mr. Ege: ^
The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has
reviewed the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the U.S. 113 Planning Study, Snow Hill, Maryland to
Delaware State Line, dated February 19, 1997. By letter dated
March 14, 1997, MDE concurred with the Alternatives Retained for
Detailed Study as presented in the Preliminary Draft EIS. At the
Interagency Meeting on March 19, 1997, the alternatives were
further refined and an updated alternatives package was faxed to
review agencies on March 21, 1997. MDE concurs with the revised
set of alternatives to be retained as presented in that package.
Recognizing that the DEIS will be revised to reflect the
revised set of alternatives, the following general comments are
provided on the preliminary document at this time.
1. Summary, p. S-5. This section contains a narrative summary
of the TSM and dualization alternatives. Since alternative
4N-Modified is retained for detailed study, a narrative
summary should also be given for "Alternatives 3S and 4N-
Modified" as a dualization alternative.
2. Summary, p. S-6. Under the section on required permits, the
NPDES permit is issued by MDE, not EPA. Also, the last
bullet should read "Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways Permit".
3. Chapter II. Alternatives Considered. At the Interagency
Meeting on 3/19/97, there was discussion on the functional
classification of the roadway and its potential affect on
the feasibility of various alternatives under consideration.
This section should contain a discussion of the issue.
Further, if the functional classification deems any of the
alternatives under consideration infeasible, those
alternatives should be eliminated at this point and not
addressed in Chapter IV, Environmental Consequences.
VI-132
3 FOR THE DEAF (410) 631-3009
"Together We Can Clean Up"
RtcycladPape
„/
-------
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
March 27, 1997
Page 2 ...
4. Chapter IV, Environmental Consequences, page IV-13. I agree
with the recommendation made at the 3/19/97 meeting that
additional information should be presented in the section on
land use. Depending on the extent of the additional detail,
I would recommend that attempts be made to distinguish
between overall land use impacts in the study area, and
those direct and indirect/.secondary impacts specifically
attributable to the U.S. 113 project. The land use
discussion should also address the affect of partially
controlled access, and the fact that the primary need for
•/•• the project is for improved safety conditions.
5. Page IV-30. The sentence at the middle of this page
regarding regulation under Section 404 is out of place.
This sentence should be placed at the end of this section
and reworded as follows: "All waters of the United States
are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). These areas are also regulated by the State of
Maryland through its wetlands and waterways statutes.
Project activities impacting jurisdictional waters and
wetlands will require authorization from the Corps of
Engineers and the Maryland Department of the Environment."
6. Chapter VI. Comments and Coordination, page VI-1. Please
note in this section that MDE had no comments on the Purpose
and Need Statement for the project.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the
Preliminary Draft EIS. If you have any questions, please contact
me at (410) 631-8093.
Sincerely,
Elder A.
Chief,
Wetlands
AM.-
elli, Jr.
Zone Consistency
'Waterways Program
BAG Jr : cma
cc: Gary Setzer
Terry Clark/ Steve Dawson
VI- 133
-------
Mr. Timothy E. Goodger
US 113 from MD 394 to Delaware
Page Two
Concurrence with Alternates Retained for Detailed Study
Please check one:
Concur (without comments)
Concur (comments attached)
Do not concur (comments attached)
National Marine Fisheries
Date
Attachment
cc: Mr. Lee Carrigan
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Ms. Gay Olsen
Ms. Renee Sigel
Ms. Cynthia Simpson
Mr. Alan Straus
Ms. Lorraine Straw
VI- 134
-------
UNITEO STATES- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini*tratfor
NATIONAL MARINE RSHSUES SERVICE
Habitat And Protected
Resources Division
Oxford, Maryland 21654
",~ ..:•• November .25, 1996 '
Louis -H. Ege, Jr.;..- - • .
Deputy Director,--Office Of Planning & Preliminary Engineering*
State Highway Administration . ...
P.O. Boac 717 : :-•-"
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
*..',•-..'.'. ' ' . •
Attn: Gay Olseri '•'•'.
Dear Mr. jEges •' " •
We nave 'reviewed the Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study,
dated September 1996, for the proposed dualization of U.S. Route
113 from Snow HiH to the Delaware State Line in Worcester County,
Maryland. Based on information we have obtained from the subject
document and the September 1996 Interagency Meeting, we do not
concur with these ^selections at this time, ,
•»" :, ""•"•"*••"/;• '!£*•{••"/ v.~.s^v*Vi»5»"»'''?t "•"•'•'" "'•'• '. '• • . . '.'"'. .•;' • -:- .
Our concerns rest primarily -with the high level of wetland impacts
associated .;:;:with';•-'• Alternate 4N-Modified, ..which • have been
preliminarily-estimated as 28.5 acres. Nontidal" wetland impacts
associated with this project will indirectly affect estuarine fish
resources through-degradation of water quality. Nutrient loading
and poor gjiality of surface water-and groundwater sources have been
identified .as.'major problems affecting estuarine habitat in the
Maryland bade bays. X. Consequently, it J-s imperative that wetland
losses ".associated-with this arid other .'significant development
proposals in the back, bay watersheds' be minimized.
While Alternate 3H may result in 'a lower level of wetland impacts, .
its ultimate selection may be hampered -by the. large number of
residential displacements associated with it. Therefore, ' we
strongly recommend that you inxesticwte various combinations of
the 3N and 4N-Mbdified aliqnments to aeteraane ir a new alternate
can be aevelopea for the northern portion of the study area that
reduces the level of wetland impacts, while still minimizing
impacts-to residential and'commercial properties.
•
If there are any questions concerning these comments, you may call
John S. Nichols at (410) 226-5771.
.tor
cc:
FRTS (Bill schultz, Annapolis)
EPA. (NEPA Program, Region m)
MD DNR (Environmental Review)
MDE (Water Quality certification)
VI-135
A
-------
Maryland Departmental'Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
December 23, 1996
RE: Project No. WO720B11
US 113: Snow Hill to
Delaware State Line
PDMS No. 232084
Mr. Timothy E. Goodger
Habitat and Protected Resources -
National Marine Fisheries Service
Oxford Laboratory
Oxford MD 21650
ATTN: Mr. John Nichols
Dear Mr. Goodger:
Thank you for your November 25 letter offering comments on the Alternates
Retained for Detailed Study. We understand your concerns with wetland impacts
associated with Alternate 4N Modified and its effect on estuarine fishery resources. Be
assured that we are aware of the importance of minimizing those impacts.
As recommended in your letter, a Combination Alternate which uses portions of
Alternates 3N and 4N Modified will be also be presented in the draft environmental
document. We have included in the development of alternates for this project, the
option of combining various segments of each alternate to maximize the flexibility in
avoiding and minimizing impacts. After the December, 1995 Alternates Public Meeting,
we analyzed each individual segment to determine if it adequately addressed the
project purpose and need and whether it should be modified to minimize project cost
and impacts. As reflected in the Alternates Retained for Detailed Study package, some
segments of Alternate 4N from just north of MD 90 to Jarvis Road (highlighted on the
attached mapping) were dropped after this analysis in order to minimize wetland
impacts and relocation costs. The attached table better illustrates the comparison of
impacts associated with the segments which were dropped versus comparable
segments of Alternate 4N Modified, which were retained for detailed study. This
discussion, as well as an impacts comparison table, broken down by segments, will be
included in the draft environmental document.
VI- 136
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
Mr. Timothy E. Goodger
US 113: Snow Hill to Delaware
Page Two
The Combination Alternate will follow the Alternate 4N Modified alignment from
US 50 north, through the previously graded interchange area at MD 90, across existing
US 113 at MD 589, bypassing the town of Showell to the east. Like Alternate 4N
Modified, the Combination Alternate ties back into existing US 113 just north of
Showell, but then follows Alternate 3N along the existing US 113 alignment to the
northern project terminus at the Delaware State Line.
We hope that this information addresses your concerns and again request your
concurrence on the Alternates Retained for Detailed Study.
Should you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact
Mr. Joseph Kresslein at (410) 545-8550.
Very truly yours,
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Attachments (3)
cc: Ms. Danielle Algazi
Mr. Ray Dintaman
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Mr. John Forren
Mr. Elder Ghigiarelli
Mr. Keith Harris
Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Mr. Rodney Little
Mr. James T. Noonan
2ph R. kresleih
Assistant Division Chief
Project Planning Division
Ms. Gay Olsen
Mrs. Suseela Rajan
Ms. Renee Sigel
Ms. Cynthia Simpson
Ms. Lorraine Straw
Mr. Jim Wynn
Mr. Robert Zepp
V-137
-------
NORTHERN STUDY AREA
Alternative Segment Impact Comparison
Southern Segment (north of US 50 to MD 589) - Preliminary Impact Summary
Displacements
Residences
Businesses
TOTAL
Environmental Impacts
Wetlands
100-year Floodplain
Historic Properties*
10
o
10
3.5
3.3
2
* ?&*>'
!
fi
1
7.1
0.0
0
,4N Option A
1
fl
1
7.1
0.0
0
4N Option B,J
1
Q
i
7.1
0.0
0
:4NMo
i
Q
1
7.1
0.0
0
' Direct ROW impacts only, indirect impacts (ie. noise, visual, etc.) are still under evaluation
Middle Segment (MD 589 to Jarvis Road) - Preliminary Impact Summary
/-', ; -"ALTERNATE '„"'..:'
Displacements
Residences
Businesses
TOTAL
Environmental Impacts
Wetlands
100-year Floodplain
Historic Properties'
< V3N'
4
0
4
7.8
2.1
1
4N V
1
0
1
9.1
4.1
0
4N Option A
2
o
2
10.8
5.2
0
4N Option B
f.
6
B 4
3 i
0
4N Modified1
_
1
& 1
2£
0
' Direct ROW impacts only, indirect impacts (ie. noise, visual, etc.) are still under evaluation
Northern Segment (Jarvis Road to the Delaware State Line) - Preliminary Impact Summary
-.-.^ ,%! ALTERNATE,; '"- ,
Displacements
Residences
Businesses
TOTAL
Environmental Impacts
Wetlands
100-year Floodplain
Historic Properties'
jy. '•
" ,: 3N1- ;-
6
6
12
2.2
0.8
1
:;<-:
1
3
4
16.2
0.8
1
4N Option A'
1
3.
4
16.2
0.8
1
;4Nf>ptionB:
1
5
16.2
0.8
1
38&aifba'
2
3
15.3
0.8
1
' Direct ROW impacts only, indirect impacts (ie. noise, visual, etc.) are still under evaluation
1 This segment is included in the Combined Alternate
VI- 138
-------
-------
VI- 140
-------
c
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERC
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrati
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Habitat And Protected
Resources Division
,.?-, . ' Oxford, Maryland 21654
^ -••' ;..; ;';/
March 31, 1997
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director, Office Of Planning & Preliminary Engineering
State Highway Administration
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
Attn: Gay Olsen, Project Planning Division
Dear Mr. Ege:
We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impacts Statement, Section
404 application, and supplemental information on project alternates
that are to be retained for detailed study for the U.S Route 113
Planning Study in Worcester, County, Maryland.
We provide our concurrence at this point in the combined NEPA/404
review process on this project for the following list of alternates
retained for detailed study.
1) Alternates is and IN (No Build)
2) Alternates 2S and 2N (Basic TSM)
3) Alternate^23 (Two-lane roadway with 20-foot median, median
barrier, passing lanes, and 60mph design speed)
4) Alternates 3S and 3N (Four-lane dualized roadway along
existing alignment with 20-foot median and median
barrier; 50 and 60mph design in northern study area;
60mph design only in the southern study area)
5) • Alternates 3S and 3N (Four-lane dualized roadway along
existing alignment with 34-foot median; 50 and 60mph
design in northern study area; 60mph design only in the
southern study area)
6) Alternate 4N Modified (Four-lane dualized roadway on new
locations, with 20-foot median)
7) Alternate 4N Modified (Four-lane dualized roadway on new
locations, with 34-foot median)
8) Alternate 3N/4N Combination (Four-lane dualized roadway with
partial new location, with 20-foot median)
9) Alternate 3N/4N Combination (Four-lane dualized roadway
partial new location/ with 34-foot median)
VI-141
-------
Regarding Alternate 2S; we recommend that a large degree of
flexibility be retained for this alternate to ensure that design,
cost and/or construction constraints do not result in its premature
elimination from the review process. As many design variations as
possible should be considered for the 2S Alternate, with the goal
of designing a safe two-lane highway that will significantly reduce
wet land/ stream impacts beyond those associated with the four-lane
highway alternates for the southern study area. Considerations
under this alternate should also go further to include the use of
a 34-foot grassed median strip, should this be required for the
purposes of providing adequate stormwater management.
We also concur with the most recent proposal to construct either a
grassed or crowned concrete median design on all alternates, with
elimination of the curb and gutter design.
We are very concerned about new stream crossings at Middle Branch
and Church Branch that are proposed for all build alternates in the
northern study area (except 3N, SOmph design) . If an alternate is
selected that will require new stream crossings, complete or
partial bridging of the new crossings should be given full
consideration to minimize impacts to stream channel/floodplain
morphometry and hydrology.
Finally, all tributary streams within the Pocomoke River watershed
that are affected by the southern study area are documented
spawning grounds for white perch (Morone americana) , yellow perch
(Perca flavescens) , alewife (Alosa pseudoharencms ) and blueback
herring (Alosa aestivalisl (Weinrich et al., 1987; Jim Mowrer, 1997
personal communication, Maryland Department Of Natural Resources,
Fisheries Division) . White perch and possibly yellow perch
spawning runs, and migratory runs of the elver stage of American
eels (Anguilla rostrata) are also known to occur in many of the
tributaries to the coast embayments (Al Wische, 1997 personal
communication, Maryland Department Of Natural Resources, Fisheries
Division) . Consequently, instream construction activities should
be restricted from February 15 to June 15 at all proposed crossings
of tributaries within the Pocomoke River and coastal embayment
watersheds.
If there are any questions concerning these comments, you may call
John S. Nichols at (410) 226-5771.
Sincerely ,
Timothy E. GocMge
Officer In Charge
Oxford Habitat Office
VI- 142
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Weinrich, Dale R., N.H. Butowski, E.W. Franklin, and J.P. Mowrer.
1987. Investigation of anadromous alosids. Project Number
F-37-R. Maryland Department Of Natural Resources, Fisheries
Division.
VI- 143
-------
MARYLAND
HISTORICAL
Parris N. Glendening. Governor
Patricia J. Payne. Secretary
T R U S T
November 15, 1996
rice of Preservation Services
Ms. Gay Olsen
Project Planning Division
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
RE:
Project No. WO 720B11
US 113 from MD 394 to the
Delaware State Line
Worcester County, MD
Dear Ms. Olsen:
Thank you for your letter, dated 11 October 1996 and
received by the Trust on 15 October 1996, requesting our comments
on the Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study for the above-
referenced project.
The Trust has no specific comments regarding the
alternatives retained for detailed study. The Environmental
Impacts section of the document should note that the Trust holds
a perpetual historic preservation easement on the St. Martin's
Church property. The two build alternates both have the
potential to affect significant historic and archeological
properties. SHA has not yet conducted archeological surveys of
the build alternates. Thus, we are unable to make informed
comments regarding effects to historic properties (including
standing structures and archeological properties) until we have
received the results of SHA's identification and evaluation of
archeological resources within the two alternatives .
We are concerned about the basis for the numbers SHA
illustrated for environmental impacts to historic properties
listed in Figures 7 and 8. The document mentions at least 10
properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. The figures give precise numbers for impacts
to historic properties. However, SHA and the Trust have not yet
resolved all eligibility or boundary issues or assessed the
project's effects to those resources. In addition, please
remember that under Section 106, effects may encompass more than
direct impacts or taking of eligible properties. In our
opinion, it is premature and misleading to include precise number
of impacts when SHA and the Trust have not yet progressed to that
stage of the Section 106 process.
Division o*!; " •' "' " t Cultural Programs ,-, I
100 Community Place
.:.!:,.., ---- 1 21032 • (410) 514-
+3 (g,
Tin- Maryland Department i>f Housing and Community Development (DHCD) pledges to foxier
the letter anil spirit of the law for achieving equal hoaxing opportunity in Marylanit.
®
-------
Ms. Gay Olsen
November 15, 1996
Page 2
We trust that SHA will undertake the archeological
'
complete the project's Section 106 review.
If you have questions or require additional information,
please call Ms. Kimberly P. Williams (for structures) at (410)
514-7637 or me (for archeology) at (410) 514-7631. Thank you tor
providing us this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth J. Cole
Administrator
Archeological Services
EJC/EAH
9603648
cc: Mr. Bruce Grey
Dr. Charlie Hall
Ms. Renee Sigel
Mr. Keith Harris
Mrs. Howard F. Yerges
Mrs. Ricks Savage
VI- 145
-------
Dates:
Attendance:
Project
Subject
MEMORANDUM OF AGENCY/PUBLIC FIELD REVIEW MEETINGS
193-70-7
(1) Thursday August 3,1995
(2) Friday August 4,1995
Name Organization
10 AM to 3PM
9 AM to Noon
Maryland State Highway Administration
LeeCarrigan(1,2)
Paul Mabney (1,2)
Lorraine Strow (1,2)
Howard ? (1)
Wayne? Pan? (1)
Bill Branch (1,2)
Glenn Evans (1,2)
Hicham Baassiri (1)
GeneCofiell(l)
Donnie Drewer (1)
SHA - Project Planning
SHA - Project Planning
SHA - Project Planning
SHA
SHA-Bridge H&H
SHA - Environmental Design
SHA - Dist 1, Construction
SHA-Dist 1
SHA -Disll Traffic
SHA - Dist 1, District Engineer
State and Federal Agencies
Mary Huie (1)
John Nichols (1)
Art Coppola (1)
Steve Dawson (1)
FHWA
National Marine Fisheries Service
Army Corps of Engineers
Non-tidal Wetlands & Waterways, MDE
Worcester County and Local Representatives
Jeanne Lynch (1)
Hal Morris (1)
Warren Rosenthal (2)
Rex Haily (1,2)
Bennett Bozman (2)
Worcester County Commissioners
Worcester County Transportation Department
Worcester County Economic Development
Berlin
38th District
Public (including CRASH members)
CRASH-Snow Hill
CRASH
CRASH
CRASH
CRASH &OPA
Daily Times
Ray Jackson (1)
Jack Lord (1)
BobHulburd(1,2)
Louise Ash (2)
Tony Kanz (2)
Sean O'Sullivan (2)
Perry Weed (1)
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, Engineers
David Wallace (1) RK&K
U.S. 113 - Worcester Highway • Planning Study
From MD 394 (Market Street) Split to the Delaware state fine
Contract No. WO 720-101-170-P
Field Review
Phone#
(410) 333-4582
(410) 333-4582
(410) 333-1184
(410) ???-834?
(410) ???-834?
(410) 333-8083
(410) 543-6715
(410) 543-6715
(410)543-6715
(410) 543-6715
(410) 962-4440
(410)226-5771
(410) 962-1723
(410) 543-6703
(410) 213-2229
(410) 632-1200
(410)632-3110
(410)641-3830
(410) 641-2227
(410) 632-0300
(410) 352-9867
(410) 641-5300
(410) 632-2600
(410) 641-8071
(410) 749-7171
(410) 822-0822
(410) 728-2900
VI- 146
-------
BRIEFING
Prior to the bus tour, David Wallace, Lee Carrigan, and others briefed those present on project histor
and need. With the aid of a handout presenting project background, traffic data, accident data, design criteria
and a detailed listing of recently completed/current/anticipated construction projects by the District as well a.<
a pair of 11" x 17" color project maps (scale 1" = 6,000'±), the following topics were discussed:
• Traffic data: including SHA's recent collection of traffic data and summer weekday and summe
weekends. On the basis of comments offered by those present, SHA agreed to present conslderabl
traffic details, including data on truck characteristics, at the Alternates Public Meeting to be held thi
fall (December, 1995).
• The graphic summarizing fatal accidents was reviewed. In addition to this exhibit, several citfeer
requested additional information concerning overall accident experience, including personal injury ar
property damage only accidents.
• In response to a question from a citizen concerning"... what environmental regulations have change
since SHA's study several years ago of bypass alternatives at Showell", Lee Carrigan stated that tr
approved classification methodology for wetiand determinations has been relaxed (in essenc
returning to the 1987 criteria). In response to a citizen's question concerning the outcome of &
Maryland - Delaware funded Beach Access Study, SHA representatives stated that Delaware stopjx
the project because of concerns that any improvements would result in the additional funnelling
Maryland traffic destined to Ocean City, Maryland through Delaware.
• In response to a citizen's question concerning construction costs, specifically referring to Delaware
recent cost for the duaRzation of their final US 113 segment, District Engineer Don Drewer indicate
that while the District can fund "special projects" that have tess than a $2 million value, construct*
of US 113 would represent a major capital investment Furthermore, this project is too large to I
constructed as one project, in all likelihood, three construction contracts would be required f
' dualization of the section between Berlin and the state fine. Each constructed segmentwould ha
to be usable.
VI- 147
-------
(1) THURSDAY, AUGUST 3,1995 - FIELD REVIEW
Following the above briefing, those present boarded a Worcester County-Ride bus and toured the US
113 project corridor from the southern project limit to the Delaware State line. Typically, the tour stopped for
a visual inspection of every stream crossing (environmental data concerning wetland characteristics were
reviewed), every historic site (inventory data reviewed) and every recent or proposed construction project
being implemented by the District
The following additional comments were recorded during this review:
• Desirably, the median width on the dualized alternative must be of sufficient width to shelter a WB-50
or B-40 vehicle.
• In response to Jack Lord's suggestion, SHA agreed to investigate interchange options at Maryland
90 - specifically, could a frontage road serve as the connection between the presently graded
cloverleaf interchange at MD 90 and relocated US 113 instead of the connection currently being
constructed in the southwest quadrant
• At Carey Creek, Bill Branch requested that Steve Dawson check DNR's records for the protection
status of a branded sunfish which may exist in this creek.
• The accident classification (personal Injury, property damage, etc.) should be checked for US 113
within the project limits.
• In response to a citizen's question asking "Because US 113 is a US Route, shouldn't it make more
sense to dualize the route?". SHA responded... "not necessarily - a need for dualizatfon must be
demonstrated."
• In response to a citizen's question stating "SHA is working on the Purpose and Need for the project
now, how will the traffic and accident statistics effect the approval of the project? Will they hurt or help
the changes?" to this, SHA answered That being below the statewide average In almost all cases.
the traffic and accident statistics wiH not help prove the need for dualization."
VI- 148
-------
(2) FRIDAY, AUGUST 4,1995 - FIELD REVIEW
For the benefit of those who could not attend the Thursday field review, Lee Carrigan again briefe
the attendees about the project and distributed the handouts. The US 113 project corridor was toured fro
south to north in similar fashion to the previous day's field review.
The following additional comments were recorded during this review.
. The public may want the southernmost end of the project around Snow Hill constructed soon.
There is an Indian Burial Ground approximately 1000 feet east of US 113. south of Five Mile Cre<
• Taylorville fTim/ille?) Road Tax ditch 1,000 feet before MD 90, south of MD 90.
. Houses are being built on Shingle Landing Road, near the north end of the job, where SH
relocated alternates from the 1990 project planning study.
. Traffic may be too low at MD 589 to the Delaware Line. Glenn will supply counts on MD 589.
• CRASH representatives requested copies of the Fatal Accident graphic, traffic count work sheets,
accident statistic work sheets.
DVWWsms
VI-149
-------
US 113
(Worcester Highway)
Snow Hill to the Delaware State Line
Field Review
August 3 & 4, 1995
Maryland State Highway Administration
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
VI- 150
-------
r—
US 113 Project Planning Study
Field Review
August, 1995
PROJECT SUMMARY
US 113
a
«•»
roadway, typically wfth fuD shoulders.
USIiaproiecthasbeenirUheHW
ent HNI shows duafizattan for *• "jJ^J" ^ done?S»an projects to avoid large scale
cluded that improvemente to US 1 13 ^should Deaone as * H i ^Q Deiaware State
tesPubl.cMeet.ngfor^eno^^^ Currently, this
™
I ^10 wu ^^k^**»^» ••»•*• " •— • —
resource agencies in May, 1995.
TRAFFIC/ACCIDENT SUMMARY
Southern Study Area
(dualized section)
(Berlin to Delaware Line)
Truck percentage of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Is approximate* 10ft
!n the AM(PM) peak period !n year 2015.
-1-
VI- 151
-------
US 113 Project Planning Study
Field Review
August, 1995
Southern Study Area (Snow
Hill to Berlin) 16.1 miles
Berlin Area 4.4 miles
(dualized section)
Northern Study Area (Berlin
to Delaware Line) 7.45 miles
140
77
167
1/1
7/7
63/113
42/93
91/177
Both the southern and northern study areas are tower than the statewide average total acadent
rate for similarly designed highways. Fatalities, however, were slgnrficanMy higher than the
statewide average in the northern study area. The majority of accidents are angle^accidentsi caused
by turning vehicles and opposite direction accidents caused by failing to keep to the nght of center.
The accident data also revealed two high accident intersections along US 113. The first Is MD376
(1992) and the second is MD 346 (1990). There were no high accident sections for this penod.
DESIGN CRITERIA
Functional Classification:
Design Speed:
• Dual Typical Section: .
Arterial
60MPH
(ft is currently Arterial)
(except in constrained areas
where 50 MPH or dosed
sections could be used)
12* Lanes
10' Outside Shoulders
4' Inside Shoulders
34* Depressed Median (or wider if possible)
• Partial control of access Is proposed for relocation alternatives and no control of access
for the alternatives along the existing alignment
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Alternates Public Meeting
Combined Location Design/Public Hearing
Location and Design Approvals
Fail 1995
Fall 1996
Spring 1997
This schedule Is compatible with the schedule presented to the CRASH team in March 1995.
-2-
VI- 152
-------
IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE US 113 CORRIDOR
Improvement? Completed
*
*
*
*
Install wide paint lines (12' center. V edge lines) m
No passing pennants mounted independently of other signs
Delaware Line bridge end markers
Signing Improvements @ MD 394
US 113 at MD 610
*
*
Widen existing pavement to provide left tumlanes atNBR & SBRof US 113
Construct right turn lanes at MD 610
* Constnict traffic signal
* Constnict right turn lane @ SBR of US 113
'US 113 at Pitts Road
*
*
Widen Pitti Road to provide right turn at US 113
Install new flasher (work in progress)
USH3*tMD589
Widen US 113 to provide acceleration and deceleration lane*
Constnict traffic signal at the Intersection
Pavement nurtdng arrow* and two way traffic signs at every nfle
Install Railed Pavement Markers ftpmPocomoke to Delaware State Line
Contract No. Wo-706-501-177 US 113 ftom south of Groton Road to 2.80 MP
Total- 2.50 m2e$ (mur&clng) completed
RENTs wffl be completed in August 1995.
* Contract Wo-710.501-177 US 113 from vacMty of Franltfn Avenue to US 50
Total - 0.95 miles -KIP - 10/23/95 (resurfccmg)
• RPKs wfll be completed hiNoveniber
USiW^mc^yao
RPMs will be completed Summer 1996
-3-
VI- 153
-------
Within 6«9 Months fCon*inpf»* upon fanding
Install flasher at MD 365
Install flasher at Castle Hill Road
Install flasher at Washington Street
Install flasher at MD 394
Install flasher at La&gnaid Road
Install flasher at Gtnnantown Road
Install street lights fit Gedartown Rotd
Install street fights at Porters Crossing Road
Install street fights ft Five Mile Branch Road
Install street lights it Basfcetiwitch Road
Install street tights it Newark Road
Install street lights at Cropper Island Road
Install street lights at Downs Road
Install street Hghtt 8t Goody H21 Road
Install street Gghts fit Shire Drive
Install street light* at Mason Road
Install streetlights at IronsMre Station Road
Install street lights «t Harrison Road
Install street lights lUEayes Landing Road
Install .stceet Gghts at MD 394
Install street lights it Landmaid Road
Install street lights at GermantownRoad
OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AT THE US 113 CORRIDOR
. years fCotffagent upon fi"Hiflff •v^tfaTitv^
• _ t
US113atJarvbRoad
* Relocate Bunting Road A ___ _.
• This project wculd need additional right of way and concurrence ftom Worcester
Bounty
* Construct US 113 southbound left turn lane onto Bunting Road
US 113 at MD 90
&SB
VI-154
-------
US 113 at MD 367
* Widen existing pavement to provide left turn lanes at NBR & SBR of US 113
* Construct right turn lanes at WBR of MD 367
* Intersection lighting and flasher
US 113 at MD 452
• Construct acceleration, deceleration lanes at NBR of US 113
* Construct southbound bypass lane (right-of-way acquisition w necessary;
US 113 at Deer Park Road
« Relocate crossover to provide access to Deer Park Road
US 113 at Kary Asphalt Entrance
* Widen US 113 SBR ahoulder to extend acceleration lane at US 113
* Wlden.US 113 NBR shoulder to provide optional bypass lane
* Pave with 1-1/2 Inch Htumtaou* concrete system whhin the limits of work at aa
locations
-5-
VI- 155
-------
VI- 156
-------
VI- 157
'tfff
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Winstf&d
Secretary
Hal Kassoff
Administrator
July 24, 1995
Ir. Art Copola
r.S. Army Corps of Engineers
».0. Box 1715
Jaltimore MD 21201
ar Mr. Copola:
ft. State Hi-ay inistration
SgS-EKoJ.'S ^oS-atr^ee'^r^ is-exp-ecied io end
approximately 3:00 p.m.
given to the environmental issues.
project manager, Mr. LeRoy Carrigan at (410) 333 4582.
Very truly yours,
Neil J. Pedersen, Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Attachment
cc: Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Mr. Alan Straus
VI- 158
My telephone number is
Ms. Gay Olsen
Lorraine Strow
K'ar.Ha'-d Re'ay Service for Impaired Hearing v
1-5CO-735-2258 Statewide Toil r'tt
Ksiling Address: P.O. Box 717 . Baltimore. MD 21203-0717
-------
MaryfandDepartmentofTmnsportation
State Highway Administration
Sel
H
Adi
July 24, 1995
f
Mr. Mike Slattery
Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg. E-2
Annapolis MD 21401
Dear Mr. Slattery: &**?
The State Highway Administration (SHA) invites you to attenl
two day meeting, we are holding, regarding environmental isl
on the US 113 project planning study. The mting. will be I
on August 3 and 4. On August 3, we will meet at the Snow I
High School, at 10:00 a.m. (see map) and is expected to enc
approximately 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be facilitated on a bus as attendees tour
US 113 study area, extending from Snow Hill to the Delaware!
line. This will afford non-agency personnel the opportunitl
interact with agency representatives. The meeting will ser
a general overview of the project with special consideratio|
given to the environmental issues.
The following day, August 4, will be used for a more in-dei
investigation by the agencies. All participants will meet
high school at 9:00 a.i. and the day will end at approximat
12?00 noon. Participant interaction will again be encourag
Those invited to attend this meeting includes: local electl
omcials, County Residents Action for Safer Highway. (CRAS
representatives from agencies such as the Federal Highway I
Administration (FHWA), the US Army Corps. °£.»^ine;" <* ,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and State and county
officials. If you are unable to attend, please contact the
project manager, Mr. LeRoy Carrigan at (410) 333-4582.
Very truly yours,
Neil J. Pedersen, Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Attachment
cc: Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Mr. Alan Straus
VI- 159
My telephone number is
Ms. Gay Olsen
Lorraine Strow
_
f/ar.-;and Resay Service fo' impaired Hearing or Spsecr.
1-SOO-735-2258 Statewide To'l F:»*
P.O. Boy 71* * BsUrrrc'e. J'D
-------
MaiylandDepartmentofTmnsportetion
State Highway Administration
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Hat Kassoff
Administrator
July 24, 1995
Mr. Pete Stokley
E.P.A. - Wetlands Protection Service
Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Phiadelphia PA 19107
Dear Mr. Stokley: i*^
The State Highway Administration (SHA) invites you to attend a
two day meeting/we are holding, regarding environmental issues
on the US 113 project planning study. The meeting will be held
on Augus? 3 and 4. On August 3, we will meet at the Snow Hill
High school, at 10:00 a.m. (see map) and is expected to end
approximately 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be facilitated on a bus as attendees tour the
Ss 113 study area, extending from Snow Hill to the Delaware state
line This will afford non-agency personnel the opportunity to
interact with agency representatives. The meeting will serve as
a general overview of the project with special consideration
given to the environmental issues.
The following day, August 4, will be used for a ffl°re in-depth
investigation by the agencies. All participants will meet at the
school at 9:00 a.m. and the day will end at approximately
3 noon: Participant interaction will again be encouraged.
Those invited to attend this meeting includes: local
offilials. County Residents Action for Safer Highways (CRASH),
representatives from agencies such as the Federal Highway &
Administration (FHWA), the US ^J Corps, of Engineers (COE), the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and State and county
officials. If you are unable to attend, please contact the
project manager, Mr. LeRoy Carrigan at (410) 333-4582.
Very truly yours,
Neil J. Pedersen, Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Attachment
cc: Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Mr. Alan Straus
Ms. Gay Olsen
Lorraine Strow
VI-160
K'sryignd Re'sy Service for Inoaired Hearing or
1-800-735-2256 Statcwoe Toll Free
f.'siiing Ac'sress: P.O. Box 71? * B»'.»i?nore. MO
-------
Mary/and Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L.
Secretary
Hal Kass
Administrat
July 24, 1995
i
Mr. Michael Day
Chief, Office of Preservation Services
Maryland Historical Trust
100 Community Place
Annapolis MD 21032-2023
ATTN: Beth Hannold .
Dear Mr. Day:
The State Highway Administration (SHA) invites you to attend a
two day meeting, we are holding, regarding environmental issues
on the US 113 project planning study. The meeting will be held
on August 3 and 4. On August 3, we will meet at the Snow Hill
High School, at 10:00 a.m. (see map) and is expected to end
approximately 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be facilitated on a bus as attendees tour the
US 113 study area, extending from Snow Hill to the Delaware stat
line. This will afford non-agency personnel the opportunity to
interact with agency representatives. The meeting will serve as
a general overview of the project with special consideration
given to the environmental issues.
The following day, August 4, will be used for a more in-depth
investigation by the agencies. All participants will meet at tt
high school at 9:00 a.m. and the day will end at approximately
12:00 noon. Participant interaction will again be encouraged.
Those invited to attend this meeting includes: local elected
officials, County Residents Action for Safer Highways (CRASH),
representatives from agencies such as the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the US Army Corps, of Engineers (COE), tl
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and State and county
officials. If you are unable to attend, please contact the
project manager, Mr. LeRoy Carrigan at (410) 333-4582.
Very truly yours.
Neil J. Pedersen, Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Attachment
cc: Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Mr. Alan Straus
-VI-
Ms. Gay Olsen
Ms. Lorraine strow
f/a-ytei2 R?!6> Service tor Impaired Heanng c-r Ssesch
1 -600-735-2253 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 . Baltimore. MD ?1203-0717
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Hal Kassoff
Administrator
July 24, 1995
Mr. William Schultz
U.S. Depepartment of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Services
177 Admiral cochrane Dr.
Annapolis MD 21401
Dear Mr. Schultz:
. I I
« "
The State Highway Administration (SHA) invites you to attend a
Jwo day meeting, we are holding, regarding environmental issues
on theUS 113 project planning study. The »f^*n?hf ^J^ff
on August 3 and 4. On August 3, we will meet at the Snow Hill
High School, at 10:00 a.m. (see map) and is expected to end
approximately 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be facilitated on a bus as attendees tour the
Ss llfstudy area, extending from Snow Hill to the Delaware state
line This will afford non-agency personnel the opportunity to
interact with agency representatives. The meeting will serve as
a glneXl overview of the project with special consideration
given to the environmental issues.
Those invited to attend this meeting includes: local elected
oflicialsfSounty Residents Action for Safer Highways CCRASH) .
Representatives from agencies such as the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the US Army Corps -ofWiwg r|o^}' **"
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) , and State and county
officials. If you are unable to attend, plea ^contact the
project manager, Mr. LeRoy Carrigan at (410) 333-4582.
Very truly yours,
Neil J. Pedersen, Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Attachment
cc: Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Mr. Alan Straus
Ms. Gay Olsen
\Ms. Lorraine Strow
VI- 162
. .^..a-d cje!ry eenrtce for i-ppaireti Heawg cr Speech
" " " l -80C-735-225S Statewide To;t Free
- /dr'rsss: P.O. Box 717 • SaUinr.ore. WD 21203-0717^
-------
MatylandDepartmentofTransportation
State Highway Administration
July 24, 1995
David L. W
Secretary
Hal Kassof
Administrator
Mr. John Nichols
Habitat and Protected Resources
National Marine Fisheries Services
Oxford Laboratory
oxford MD 21650
Dear Mr. Nichols:
The State Highway Administration (SHA) invites you to attend a
two day meeting, we are holding, regarding environmental issues
on the US 113 project planning study. The meeting will be held
on August 3 and 4. On August 3, we will meet at the Snow Hill
High School, at 10:00 a.m. (see map) and is expected to end
approximately 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be facilitated on a bus as attendees tour the
US 113 study area, extending from Snow Hill to the Delaware state
line. This will afford non-agency personnel the opportunity to
interact with agency representatives. The meeting will serve as
a general overview of the project with special consideration
given to the environmental issues.
The following day, August 4, will be used for a more in-depth
investigation by the agencies. All participants will meet at the
high school at 9:00 a.m. and the day will end at approximately
12?00 noonT Participant interaction will again be encouraged.
Those invited to attend this meeting includes: local elected
officials, County Residents Action for Safer Highways (CRASH),
representatives from agencies such as the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the US ArmyCorps, of Engineers (COE), the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and State and county
officials. If you are unable to attend, please contact the
project manager, Mr. LeRoy Carrigan at (410) 333-4582.
Very truly yours,
Neil J. Pedersen, Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Attachment
cc: Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Mr. Alan Straus
Ms. Gay Olsen
Lorraine Strow
VI- 163
Vz-i.z-z Re!ey Service for Impeded Hearing or Speech
" -800-735-2258 Statew'^5 Toil Free
Ma-line: Address: P.O. Box 717 » Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
~ --.- - ' "•'" ' " ' '
-------
MaiylandDepartmentofTmnsportation
State Highway Administration
David L Winstes
Secretary
Hal Kassoff
Administrator
July 24, 1995
Mr. Andrew Der
Nonpoint Source Permit Program
D.O.E. Water Management Administration
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore MD 21224
Dear Mr. Der: A
The State Highway Administration (SHA) invites you to attend a
two day meeting, we are holding, regarding environmental issues
on the US 113 project planning study. The meeting will be held
on August 3 and 4. On August 3, we will meet at the Snow Hill
High School, at 10:00 a.m. (see map) and is expected to end
approximately 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be facilitated on a bus as attendees tour the
US 113 study area, extending from Snow Hill to the Delaware state
line. This will afford non-agency personnel the opportunity to
interact with agency representatives. The meeting will serve as
a general overview of the project with special consideration
given to the environmental issues.
The following day, August 4, will be used for a more in-depth
investigation by the agencies. All participants will meet at the
high school at 9:00 a.m. and the day will end at approximately
12:00 noon. Participant interaction will again be encouraged.
Those invited to attend this meeting includes: local elected
officials, county Residents Action for Safer Highways (CRASH),
representatives from agencies such as the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the US Army Corps, of Engineers (COE), the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and State and county
officials. If you are unable to attend, please contact the
project manager, Mr. LeRoy Carrigan at (410) 333-4582.
Very truly yours,
Neil J. Pedersen, Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Attachment
cc: Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Mr. Alan Straus
MS. Gay Olsen
Lorraine Strow
VI- 164-
Retey Service for Impaired Hearing o* Spesc*
1-600-735-2258 Statewide Toil Free
Mel-lino Address: P.O. Box 717 * Baltimore. MD 21203-0717
~ __.. . . . _ . • _ ... .. ....'.*-•
-------
MarylandDepartmentofTransportation
State Highway Administration
David L
Secretary
Hal Kass
Administrat
July 24, 1995
Mr. Jim Noonan
Office of State Planning
State Clearing House
301 West Preston Street
Baltimore MD 21201
Dear Mr. Noonan
: ,>.*/"
The State Highway Administration (SHA) invites you to attend a
•two day meeting, we are holding, regarding environmental issues
on the US 113 project planning study. The meeting will be held
on August 3 and 4. On August 3, we will meet at the Snow Hill
High School, at 10:00 a.m. (see map) and is expected to end
approximately 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be facilitated on a bus as attendees tour the
US 113 study area, extending from Snow Hill to the Delaware statt
line. This will afford non-agency personnel the opportunity to
interact with agency representatives. The meeting will serve as
a general overview of the project with special consideration
given to the environmental issues.
The following day, August 4, will be used for a more in-depth
investigation by the agencies. All participants will meet at the
high school at 9:00 a.m. and the day will end at approximately
12:00 noon. Participant interaction will again be encouraged.
Those invited to attend this meeting includes: local elected
officials, County Residents Action for Safer Highways (CRASH),
representatives from agencies such as the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the US Army Corps, of Engineers (COB), the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and State and county
officials. If you are unable to attend, please contact the
project manager, Mr. LeRoy Carrigan at (410) 333-4582.
Very truly yours.
Neil J. Pedersen, Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Attachment
cc: Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Mr. Alan Straus
Ms. Gay Olsen
xMs. Lorraine Strow
VI- 165
Rela: £?rv;ce tor Impaired Hsarina or Spsech
:-2Q:"-35-22*£ Statewcie To!! Fr'ee
g Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore. MD 21203-0717
-------
Maryland Department of Timsportation
State Highway Administration
David L Winstead
Secretary
Hal Kassoff
Administrator
July 24, 1995
Mr. Harold W. Morris
Director of Planning,Permits and
Inspections
Rm. 116 Court House
Snow Hill MD 21863
Dear Mr. Morris:
The State Highway Administration (SHA) invites you to attend a
two day meeting, we are holding, regarding environmental issues
on the US 113 project planning study. The meeting will be held
on August 3 and 4. On August 3, we will meet at the Snow Hill
High School, at 10:00 a.m. (see map) and is expected to end
approximately 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be facilitated on a bus as attendees tour the
US 113 study area, extending from Snow Hill to the Delaware state
line. This will afford non-agency personnel the opportunity to
interact with agency representatives. The meeting will serve as
a general overview of the project with special consideration
given to the environmental issues.
The following day, August 4, will be used for a more in-depth
investigation by the agencies. All participants will meet at the
high school at 9:00 a.ra. and the day will end at approximately
12:00 noon. Participant interaction will again be encouraged.
Those invited to attend this meeting includes: local elected
officials, County Residents Action for Safer Highways (CRASH),
representatives from agencies such as the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the US Army Corps, of Engineers (COE), the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and State and county
officials. If you are unable to attend, please contact the
project manager, Mr. LeRoy Carrigan at (410) 333-4582.
Very truly yours,
Neil J. Pedersen, Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Attachment
cc: Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Mr. Alan Straus
Ms. Gay Olsen
Mis. Lorraine Strow
VI- 166
Re's? Swsc* for Impaled Hee'Ino or Spesch
'•SDO-725-2258 Statewide Ton Free
•.*?.'H~o /iddrecc: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, r/.D 21203-0717
" ••
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. V
Secretary
Hal Kasso
Administrate
July 24, 1995
Ms. Sandy Coyman
County Planning Chairperson
Era. 116 Court House
Snow Hill MD 21863
Dear Ms. Coyman: &"*/
The State Highway Administration (SHA) invites you to attend a
two day meeting, we are holding, regarding environmental issues
on the US 113 project planning study. The meeting will be held
on August 3 and 4. On August 3, we will meet at the Snow Hill
High School, at 10:00 a.m. (see map) and is expected to end
approximately 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be facilitated on a bus as attendees tour the
US 113 study area, extending from Snow Hill to the Delaware state
line. This will afford non-agency personnel the opportunity to
interact with agency representatives. The meeting will serve as
a general overview of the project with special consideration
given to the environmental issues.
The following day, August 4, will be used for a more in-depth
investigation by the agencies. All participants will meet at the
high school at 9:00 a.m. and the day will end at approximately
12:00 noon. Participant interaction will again be encouraged.
Those invited to attend this meeting includes: local elected
officials, County Residents Action for Safer Highways (CRASH),
representatives from agencies such as the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the US Army Corps, of Engineers (COE), the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and State and county
officials. If you are unable to attend, please contact the
project manager, Mr. LeRoy Carrigan at (410) 333-4582.
Very truly yours,
Neil J. Pedersen, Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Attachment
cc: Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Mr. Alan Straus
Ms. Gay Olsen
.Ms. Lorraine Strow
VI- 167
?•-::.-:? Address: P.O. Fox 717 • Bs'timore. MO 21203-0717
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Wmstee<
Secretary-
Hal Kassoff
Administrator
July 24, 1995
Mr. Tim Stoner
General Manager
Ocean Pine Association
2700 Ocean Pine
Berlin MO 21811
* •
Dear Mr. Stoner:
The State Highway Administration (SHA) invites you to attend a
two day meeting, we are holding, regarding environmental issues
on the US 113 project planning study. The meeting will be held
on August 3 and 4. On August 3, we will meet at the Snow Hill
High School, at 10:00 a.m. (see map) and is expected to end
approximately 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be facilitated on a bus as attendees tour the
US 113 study area, extending from Snow Hill to the Delaware state
line. This will afford non-agency personnel the opportunity to
interact with agency representatives. The meeting will serve as
a general overview of the project with special consideration
given to the environmental issues.
The following day, August 4, will be used for a more in-depth
investigation by the agencies. All participants will meet at the
high school at 9:00 a.m. and the day will end at approximately
12:00 noon. Participant interaction will again be encouraged.
Those invited to attend this meeting includes: local elected
officials, County Residents Action for Safer Highways (CRASH),
representatives from agencies such as the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the US Array Corps, of Engineers (COE), the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and State and county
officials. If you are unable to attend, please contact the
project manager, Mr. LeRoy Carrigan at (410) 333-4582.
Very truly yours,
Neil J. Federsen, Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Attachment
cc: Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Mr. Alan Straus
Ms. Gay Olsen
"-Ms. Lorraine Strow
VI- 168
TO'!
- «7
-------
Mary/and Departmentof Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Wi
Secretary
Hal Kassoff
Administrator
July 24, 1995
for safer Highways
11073 Cathell Road
Berlin MD 21811
Dear Mr. Hulburd:
approximately 3:00 p.m.
given to the environmental issues.
ndeth
The following day, August 4, will be used for a more
'-'
Very truly yours,
Neil J. Pedersen, Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Attachment
cc: Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Mr. Alan Straus
Ms. Gay Olsen
Lorraine Strow
f/«?JSInc!
VI- 169
Relay S
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ATTN:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RE:
Lou Ege, Jr., Deputy Director
Project Planning Division
Sue Rajan
Susan M. Jacobs, Acting
Environmental Programs Division
March 31,1997
FMIS No.:
Description:
WO721B11
US 113 - Snow Hill to the Delaware Line
Wetland Jurisdictional Review
Attached for your use are the minutes of the February 27, 1997, Jurisdictional Review
meeting. This meeting completed the JD for the US 113 Corridor. All the wetlands
delineated by Coastal Resources have been verified by the US Army Corp of
Engineers. The Maryland Department of Environment Nontidal Wetlands and
Waterways Division has stated that they will accept the USACOE determination. The
survey crews were on site while the JD was proceeding, and were provided with revised
mapping. All ditches containing hydrophytic vegetation are considered Jurisdictional
and will be noted as such on the plans. The ditches were not flagged or surveyed, but
will be shown from the topographic mapping.
The Environmental Programs Division, at your request, is proceeding with the mitigation
site search, and the Function and Value evaluations for the potentially impacted
wetlands. We will provide you with minutes of those meetings as soon as possible.
Please distribute these minutes to all interested parties. If you have any questions or
comments, please contact Robert Shreeve at (410) 545-8613.
SMJ/JWH/RES
cc: Bruce Grey, PPD EPS
VI- 170
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
COASTAL
RESOURCES
INC
Project:
Date:
Purpose:
Location:
In Attendance:
MINUTES OF MEETING
U.S. Route 113, Snow Hill to Delaware State Line
Project No. WO 720-1-1-170-P
February 27,1997
Wetland Jurisdiction Determination
Snow Hill, Worcester County
Robert Shreeve, SHA-EPD
Gary Jellick, CRI
Michelle Gomez,USCOE
The purpose of the meeting was to complete the jurisdictional determination for three locations
in the study area. The attendees met at the SHA District garage in Snow Hill at 9:30 a.m. on
February 27,1997.
Wetland 2
Wetland 5A
West Side. All flag locations were verified by the Corps between flags 2-1 to 2-
9 and 2A-1 to 2A-6. A jurisdictional channel was added to the map at Station
1104 (this channel does not show up on the topographic plans). The channel
will be labeled ~SAx on the project plans to signify an excavated intermittent
stream.
West Side between Station 1168 and Station 1174. This is a new wetland that
was flagged by the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
during a previous site visit. CRI subsequently reviewed the flagging, and the
wetland was not inspected again during this field visit. It appears that the
wetland has formed in an old borrow area.
Route 90
Interchange
Each quadrant of the Route 90 interchange was reviewed by the group. Two,
small depressional wetlands were verified in the northwest quadrant of the
interchange, which may have been created by previous disturbance during
construction of Rt. 90. Wetland 27A is an emergent wetland that includes an
VI- 171
2988 Solomons Island Road, Edgewater, MD 21037
(410)956-9000 Bait. (410) 269-9269 DC (301) 261-4805 FAX (410) 956-0566
-------
U.SIl'3
•Meeting Minutes
February 27, 1997
Page 2
approximate 20'xlOO' area. Wetland 27B is a forested wetland that includes an
approximate 50'xlOO' area. Wetland 27C is located in the southeast quadrant of
the interchange, and appears to have formed because of blocked drainage
ditches.
The group also reviewed numerous drainage ditches in the interchange, and the
Corps indicated the limit of jurisdiction within each ditch. The jurisdictional
limit within the ditches was indicated on the project plans and no flagging was
placed in the field.
After the field review, the group discussed the mapping of fanned wetlands in the study area.
All in attendance agreed that flagging and surveying of farmed wetlands was not needed at this
time for the purpose of the environmental document. It is acceptable to the Corps to show the
approximate location of farmed wetlands based on a review of NRCS information and limited
field reconnaissance. Farmed wetlands will be flagged and surveyed prior to permitting only in
the area of the selected alternative.
If there are any additions or deletions to these minutes, please contact Gary Jellick at (410) 956-
9000.
cc: Attendees
Sue Rajan (SHA-PPD)
Lisa Zeimer (RKK)
VI- 172
-------
Project:
Date:
Purpose:
Location:
In Attendence:
COASTAL
RESOURCES
INC
MINUTES OF MEETING
U.S. Route 113, Snow Hill to Delaware State Line
Project No. WO 720-1-1-170-P
October 29 to 31,1996
Wetland Jurisdiction Determination
Snow Hill, Worcester County
Lee Carrigan, SHA-PPD
Paul Maloney, SHA-PPD
Lorraine Strow, SHA-PPD
Robert Shreeve, SHA-EPD
GaryJellick,CRI
Michelle Gomez,USCOE
MaryHuic,FHWA
Bill Carver, SHA-PPD
John Zanetti, SHA-HDD
Andy Parker, RK&K
David Sutherland, USFWS
Larry Hughes, MDDNR
The purpose of the meeting was to conduct a jurisdiction determination (JD) of forty wetlands
identified and flagged in the project planning area by Coastal Resources, Inc. The field review
was scheduled for three days.
The attendees met at the SHA District garage in Snow Hill at 8:00 a.m. on October 29,1996. An
overview of the project was presented by Lee Carrigan, Gary Jellick, and Andy Parker. The
initial schedule for the field review was to complete the southern study area on the first day, and
move to the northern study area on days 2 and 3. However, the schedule was revised within the
first few hours of the field review when it became apparent that much more time would be
needed to complete the jurisdiction determination for the entire planning area.
A joint decision was made to focus the field review on the northern study area since the northern
portion of the project would likely be built before the southern study area. The review was
shifted to the northern study area at 1:00 p.m. on October 29. The following information
summarizes the results of the jurisdiction determination in the order that the wetlands were
reviewed.
VI- 173
2988 Solomons Island Road, Edgewater, MD 21037
(410)956-9000 Bait. (410) 269-9269 DC (301) 261-4805 FAX (410) 956-0566
-------
U.S113
Meeting Minutes
October 29 to 31,1996
Page 2
Southern Study Area
Wetland 8 - West side only. Wetland boundary between flag numbers 1 to 20 (last flag)
• approved by the agencies and all in attendance. No changes to flagging.
Wetland 6 - West side only. Wetland boundary between flags 1A to 8A Oast flag) and IB to 22 B
(last flag) verified by the agencies. The ditch that extends north of Wetland 6 to the
culvert (approx. 250 feet) was determined to be jurisdictional by the Corps because it
connects two jurisdictional wetland areas. The ditch should be shown as PEMx on
the wetland map; the "x" signifies that it is excavated. The ditch averages 8 feet^wide
sou* of the culvert and five feet wide north of the culvert. A flag was placed 100
feet north'of the culvert to delineate the limit of regulatory jurisdiction in the ditch.
No decision was made by the Corps concerning the ditch south of Wetland 6 along
Public Landing Road; additional information must be reviewed to make the JD.
Wetland 5 - The wetland boundary from flags 1 to 9 (last flag) were verified by the agencies.
A new wetland area was identified by the Corps approximately 2000 feet north of
Wetland 5, near the Worcester County jail. The wetland was identified as New-1
and five flags were used to delineate the boundary. New-1 is approximately 30 x
100 feet.
A wet spot at the edge of an agricultural field was observed approximately 1200 feet
north of Wetland 5. Wetland vegetation was present in the wet spot; however, the
soil did not exhibit hydric characteristics. The Corps stated that the NRCS would
have to make the jurisdiction determination in this area.
Wetland 3 - West side only. The wetland boundary between flags 1 and 6 Oast flag) were
verified by the agencies. An area immediately south of Wetland 3 was inspected and
was determined asi to be jurisdictional by the Corps. This non-jurisdictional area
was not originally flagged by CM, but shows up on the wetland delineation map
from previous site planning studies (NWI maps). The wetland designation will be
removed from the map.
Wetland 1 - West side only. Wetland boundary flags 1 to 5 (last flag) were verified.
A new wetland (New-2) was identified in a swale located 150 feet north of Wetland
1. The wetland boundary will be flagged by CRI at a later date.
Northern Study Area
Wetland 40 - West and East side. Wetland boundary verified between flags 1A to 11A Oast flag)
on the east side, and flags IB to 13 B Oast flag) on the west side. No changes made
to delineation.
VI-174
-------
U.S 113
Meeting Minutes
October 29 to 31,1996
Page 3
Wetland 39 (on new alignment, north or Rt. 610) - Delineation verified by the Corps after several
flags were moved. Wetland flags have not yet been surveyed; therefore, the flag
numbers were not noted.
End of Day 1,4:45 p.m.
October 30,1996 (8:00 a.m.) - Group met at Calvery Christ Church parking lot.
Wetland 37 (on new alignment, south of Rt 610) - The delineation along the northern edge of
the wetland was reviewed (flags 32 to 49-last flag). The Corps disagreed with the
wetland flagging in this area and all flags were moved, generally to the tree line and
Rt 610. The Corps also noted that the com field between Rt. 610 and the tree line
may be a wetland, and the NRCS would have to be consulted. Flags 1 to 31 were
not reviewed by the Corps.
Because of the time needed to review the wetland boundary on flat landscapes and the difference
between the original flagging and the Corps flagging, a joint decision was made to postpone the
JD on Wetland 37 and try to complete the JD for the major stream valleys of the northern study
area.
Wetland 38 (between RR tracks and Rt 113) - Several flags were moved and the delineation
was extended to include the ditch along Rt. 113. All current flag locations (1-12)
were verified by the Corps.
Wetland 31 (west side and east side) - Verified flags 1 to 14 on the east side and flags 1 to 6 on
the west side. New flags (1A to 5 A) were added to include a swale along Rt. 113 in
the northwest quadrant Note: last flag on east side is #29 and last flag on west side
is #9, which were not verified.
Wetland 30 (west side and east side) - Verified delineation on the west side from flags 1 to 15
(last flag). Added two flags (1A and 2A) to ensure that the entire study area was
flagged. Verified delineation on east side from flags 1 to 24 (last flag on in southeast
quadrant) and 1A to 10A Oast flag in northeast quadrant). The channel that enters
the wetland in the northeast quadrant is "waters of the U.S" (intermittent).
End Day 2,5:00 p.m.
October 31,1996 (8:00 a.m.) - Group met at Calvery Christ Church parking lot
Wetland 28 (west side and east side) - Verified delineation on the west side from flags 1 to 12.
Waters of the U.S. continue south in a ditch (phagmites cover) along Rt 113 to a
culvert at Racetrack Road. Verified delineation on east side from flag 1 to 15 Oast
flag), and added three flags in southeast quadrant to ensure coverage of study area
(1A - 1C, verified). Note: last flag on west side is #20, which was not verified.
VI-175
-------
U.S113
Meeting Minutes
October 29 to 31,1996
Page 4
Wetland 29 (excavated depression) - Corps tentatively agrees with delineation, but final
Wetland JC™^ dej^ation wasnotmadependmg additional investigation. Flags 2 to
15 were reviewed but not verified. Note: last flag is #20.
End Day 3,11:30 a.m.
If there are any additions or deletions to these minutes, please contact Gary Jellick at (410) 956-
9000 by November 22,1996.
cc: Attendees *
VI- 176
-------
COASTAL
R£SOURC€S
INC.
To: Rob Shreeve, Project Manager
Environmental Programs Division
From: Gary Jellick, Coastal Resources, Inc.
Date: December 11,1996
Subject: U.S. Route 113, Snow Hill to Delaware State Line
Wetlands Jursdicrion Determination,
Supplemental Meeting Minutes for November 26 and 27,1996
The following documentation is intended to supplement the meeting minutes prepared by Todd
Nichols for the referenced project (see memorandum to Rob Shreeve dated December 2, 1996).
The attendance list and overview of the field review is provided in Mr. Nichols' minutes.
Northern Study Area Alternate 4N
Wetland 27 Flags 1A to 5A were moved 50 to 100 feet west away from the southbound on-
ramp. Flag #1 thru flag #37 along the mainline were verified by all in attendance.
Flags 38 to 40 were not verified by the agencies because they were outside the
proposed r/w.
Note: the entire group reviewed the delineation for Wetland 27 during the
afternoon of November 26. The group broke into two teams on November 27 to
continue the field review. Michelle Gomez, Al Rizzo, and Gary Jellick reviewed
the following wetlands.
Wetland 23 Two new flags (2 A and 3 A) were added along the northern edge of the wetland to
include a wet "finger". All other flags were verified without modification.
As the team walked north along the proposed alignment toward Wetland 26, three
small depressional wetlands were identified that were not shown on the plans.
One of the depressions was flagged with nine flags (identified as New3). The
team decided not to flag the other two depressions in order to save time. Coastal
Resources will flag the remaining two depressions at a later date when the
agencies return to complete the review for the southern study area.
VI-177
2988 Solomons Island Road, Edgewater, MD 21037
(410)956-9000 Bait. (410) 269-9269 DC (301) 261-4805 FAX (410) 956-0566
-------
U.S 113
Meeting Minutes
Page 2
Wetland 26
Wetland 26
Wetland 37
The agencies determined that a fanned wetland exists within the agricultural field
11* agenc ^^ station ^ ^ 2016. The farnied wetiand is
Sguoiwith Wetland 26. The agencies also determined that the area of
phagStes, which was not originally flagged, should be included in the wetland by
connecting flag 1A to flag 8A (eliminate flags 2A to 7A).
The agencies verified flags 1 to 41 along Alternate 4N with one modification:
flags 26 to 29 were removed so that now flag 25 should connect to flag 30.
Flags 1 to 31 along existing U.S. 113 were verfied by the agencies with the
fdlowh^ Modifications: fl£ 25 was moved approximately 25 feet east toward
US and the Corps made note that the wetland should extend approximately 10
feet into the mowed lawn of trailer home between flags 1 and 3. Ms. Gomez
stated that we could off-set the line on the map without moving the flags since it
is a mowed area.
S^CS wffl be needed to address farmed wetlands in. the study area; however, Ms. Gomez
stated that the Corps has the lead on linear projects.
If you have any questions regarding these minutes, please at (410) 956-9000.
cc: Todd Nichols
Andy Parker (RKK)
VI- 178
-------
V »'.»-•*•'
Mary/andDepartmentofTMnsportaiiph:^ '"
State Highway Administration ...,.--
.. ,, ^n;..i -•:
:.=C £' -J
David L
Secretary
Parker (
Administr
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ATTN:
FROM:
DATE:
Louis H. Ege, Jr., Deputy Director
Project Planning Division
Sue RajaQ
Susan M. Jacobs, Acting Cr
Environmental Programs Division
December 20,1996
SUBJECT: FMIS No.:
Description:
WO720B11
US 113 from MD 394 to the Delaware State Line
RE:
Wetland Jurisdictional Review
Attached for your use and review are minutes of the November 26 and 27,1996.
Wetland Jurisdictional Review. The Northern Study Area has been completed with t
exception of some new areas between W-23 and W-26 that will be flagged by Coast
Resources. The Northern wetland delineation can be surveyed.
The next Jurisdictional Review will concentrate on completing the Southern Study Ai
January 8-and 9,1997 have been set to conduct the meeting. EPD will advise you
when the Southern area can be surveyed.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Robert Shreeve at (410) 54*
8613.
SMJ/JWH/RES
cc: Bruce Grey, PPD EPS
Gary Jellick, Coastal Resources Inc.
VI- 179
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, UD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
Mary land Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L.
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
December 2,1996
TO:
FROM:
Rob Shreeve, Project Manager
Environmental Programs Division
Todd Nichols
SUBJECT: US. 113, Wetland Jurisdictional
Field Review - Minutes •
-
On Qfljm.*lii..i. &r, 1996, the first day of a two day field review, representative of
the US. Fish and Wildlife Service, US. Army Corps of Engineers and SHA met at
8:00 AM at the Church located at US. 113 and MD 90. The attendees were:
Mr. David Sutherland
Mr. AlRizzo
Mr.JeffTrulik
Ms. Michelle Gomez
Mr. Todd Nichols
Garyjeffick
US. Fish and Wildlife Service
US. Fish and Wildlife Service
US. Army Corps of Engineers
US. Army Corps of Engineers
MD State Highway Administration
Coastal Resources/ Inc.
Due to the severe weather, the attendees agreed to meet back at the site at 12.-OQ
noon. At noon the group reconvened and began the jurisdictional review at
wetland 27. As was discussed at a previous meeting between Susan Jacobs,
Michelle Gomez and Gary Jellick, the group was to review the soils and
hydrology of this system with Mr. Rizzo, and reach agreement on the
hydrologic characteristics exhibited in the soil as it relates to jurisdictionality. As
a result of this review, it was determined that although a primary indicator of
hydrology was not present, that two secondary indicators was adequate to verify
hydrology (this was verified in the 1987 Corps Manual). Most wedand flags
were moved 100 feet or so west (away from proposed work). The hydrology of •
this system was very complex, and with the thick understory of pepperbush and •
greenbrier, the J.D was very time consuming. Gary Jellick noted all flags which
were moved.
On November 26,1996 the group met at 8:00 AM and broke into two groups.
Todd Nichols and Jeff Trulik reviewed the weflands adjacent to existingUS, 113
and the others reviewed those wetlands along Alternate 4N,-feeMl rf »t!
Gary Jellick will be writing Alternative 4N J.D. results.
VI- 180 —
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toil Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
page 2.
Rob Shreeve
Results of Todd and Jeffe J.D. review:
W-24. No flags were moved, Jeff concurred with the J.D. of the forested
area; however, he did have some concerns about the fannfield located south of
W-24. .
W-25 This system is much more extensive than is depicted on the plans.
The wetland line was extended about 300 ft NJL along U.S. 113. We removed
flags 4,5, & 6, but added flags 3D and 3R The Corps will take jurisdiction of the
roadside ditch for several hundred feet The ditch hydrology was directly fed by
W-25. - • .. '•
W-34 No flags moved/ Jeff concurred with the flagged wetlands;
' however, he felt the farm fields were disturbed farmed wetlands and should be
delineated. Jeff took note of recent logging activities 800 feet west of US. 113.
W-33 No flags moved, Jeff concurred with the flagged wetlands. He felt
the ditch located near sta. 2265 is jurisdictional waters.
W-36 The area has recently been "bushhogged'*, so we reflagged the
limits along U.S. 113.
Around 1:30 PM we met the rest of the attendees at W-37. We attempted to
verify the limits of the "upland island" 800 feet west of sta. 2315 on existing US.
113. After nearly forty-five minutes I decided to .call the entire area in as
wetland, as requested by Michelle Gomez,; however, if alternate 4N is chosen.
SHA and COE will verify. This upland area is about 2 acres in size and if called
wetland could ultimately cost SHA +$200,000 to mitigate.
In summary, the northern section was completed with minor changes.
biggest concern will be the status of the disturbed farmed wetlands.
•
If you have any further questions see me or call Gary Jeffick.
Thanks for the opportunity to help out on mis project
VI- 181
The
-------
Maryland Departmentof Transportation
State Highway Administration
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ATTN:
FROM:
DATE:
Lou Ege, Jr., Deputy Director
Project Planning Division
Sue Rajan ^_______^ *\
\$3&^fiJ\U4r£si^£)
Susan M. Jacobs, Acting Chief T\
Environmental Programs Division
Februarys, 1997
SUBJECT: FMIS No.:
Description:
WO721B11
US 113 - Snow Hill to the Delaware Line
RE:
Wetland Jurisdictional Review
Attached for your use are the minutes of the January 22 and 23, 1997, Jurisdictional
Review meeting. To ensure that a complete set of the JD meeting minutes exists, the
minutes from the October 29 - 31,1996, and November 26 and 27, 1996, meetings are
also included. All the wetlands delineated by Coastal Resources have been verified by
the US Army Corp of Engineers. The Maryland Department of Environment Nontidal
Wetlands and Waterways Division has stated that they will accept the USACOE
determination. The survey crews were on site while the JD was proceeding, and were
provided with revised mapping. All ditches containing hydrophytic vegetation are
considered Jurisdictional and will be noted as such on the plans. The ditches were not
flagged or surveyed, but will be shown from the topographic mapping.
There are still issues that need to be resolved as part of the Jurisdictional
Determination. USACOE wants to coordinate with the National Resource Conservation
Service to make the determination on possible farmed wetlands. Coastal Resources
will proceed with evaluating Infrared photos to determine the presence of wetlands in
the identified areas.
Wetland 29 was reviewed by USACOE in October, but no formal determination has
been made. By receipt of these minutes. USACOE is requested to make a
determination.
VI-182
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1 -800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MO 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
Lou Ege, Jr.
WO721B11
Februarys. 1997
Page 2
November review- tha* SHA re-check the MD 90/US 113
USAOE notdMH f°r ? PreS6nCe °f W6tIandS- At the Novemb*r meeting
to t^e c!nTfr! I ^ adjaC6nt t0 the interchan9* "*y contain wetlands. Due
rn^i P tS'the 3rea W3S n0t reviewed because jt had not been delineated
n^rnp T^5 W'" investj9ate and delineate as needed. EPD will request
USACOE verify the delineation when USACOE is available.
As noted in the November minutes, Wetland 37 should have a comprehensive
delineation completed if Alternate 4N is selected in the area of Sta. 2320+00 There
seemed to be an extensive upland inclusion in the wetland.
As referred to in the January minutes, the area opposite Wetland 2 has since been
determined to have forested wetlands. USACOE determined that wetlands do exist
n?Arnp^!P *?96tatiVe 3nalySiS determjned that the vegetation was hydrophytic
USACOE did not determine the extent of the wetlands. Coastal Resources will
delineate the wetlands in the next week. EPD will request USACOE verify the
delineation when USACOE is available.
USACOE checked a wetland area found on the October JD. The wetland was flagged
fa^aeW ' J8S qufstioned ^ USACOE. USACOE determined that the wetland
was larger than ong.nally flagged. USACOE delineated the wetland. SHA needs to
survey and show on the plans.
The resolution of these outstanding issues is underway. Please distribute these
minutes to all interested parties. If you have any questions or comments, please
contact Robert Shreeve at (410) 545-8613.
SMJ/JWH/RES
cc: Bruce Grey, PPD EPS
VI- 183
-------
COASTAL
RESOURCES
INC
Project:
Date:
Purpose:
Location:
In Attendance:
MINUTES OF MEETING
U.S. Route 113 fromMD 394 to Delaware State Line
Project No. WO 720-1-1-170-P
January 22 and 23,1997
Wetland Jurisdiction Determination
Snow Hill, Worcester County
Robert Shreeve, MD State Highway Administration, EPD
David Sutherland, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Michelle Gomez, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Gary Jellick, Coastal Resources, Inc.
The
of the meeting was to complete the jurisdictional determination for the southern
_w tween Snow Hill and Berlin. The attendees met at the SHA District garage in Snow
Hill at 8:00 a.m. on January 22,1997.
The agencies emphasized that the jurisdictional determination* ; vali
-------
U.S 113 Jurisdictional Determination
Meeting Minutes
January 22 and 23,1997
Page 2
All attendees agreed that for the purpose of calculating impacts, the ditches would be assigned a
width of 5-feet unless otherwise noted, and would be labeled with the suffix "x to indicate that
the wetland or stream is man-made or excavated (PEMx = emergent wetland ditch; R4x -
channelized intermittent stream; R2x = channelized perennial stream). The attendees also agreed
that the roadside ditches would be replaced in-kind, and that they should not be included in the
overall mitigation requirements for the project
The following information summarizes the results of the jurisdiction determination in the ordei
that the wetlands were reviewed.
Wetland 1A - West side. This area is a new extension of Wetland 1, which was previousl}
verified by the Corps. The wetland boundary between flags 1A-1 to 1A-8 were
verified by all in attendance. Wetland 1A has recently been logged and has a nev
growth of emergent and scrub/shrub species. Wetland 1 and Wetland 1A ar<
connected by a Jurisdictional ditch located along U.S. 113. The jurisdicuona
ditch will be labeled as PEMx on the project plans.
Wetland 2 - West side. Wetland 2 was extended to the toe of slope for the road embankmer
from approximately Station 1101 to Station 1091. Eleven new flags were place
along the toe of slope and were labeled New-1 to New-11. Flag New-11 ues-in t
the existing flag E2-3. Flags E2-1 and E2-2 were removed.
The area on the east side of 113, opposite of Wetland 2, was reviewed by tb
Corps; however, a final decision on regulatory jurisdiction was not made. Tfc
Corps stated that additional information will be reviewed, and the SHA will t
informed if the area should be flagged. Coastal Resources did not flag the area as
wetland because the plant community is predominately white oak (facu), loblol]
(fac-), red oak (facu), American holly (facu), and highbush blueberry (facw).
WetlandS - East side. No changes made to wetland flagging. The agencies determined th
the ditch that enters the wetland from the south is Jurisdictional, and should t
labeled as PEMx. .
Wetland 4 - South side of Brick Kiln Road. The wetland is outside the design area. If fin
design impacts this area, the wetland will be verified by the agencies.
Wetland 7 - Wetland boundary between Flag 6C and Flag 22C was verified by the agencies.
Wetland 8 - The wetland boundary between Flag E5-1 and E5-22 was verified by the agora
The wetland map was revised between Station 1215 and Station 1205 to indies
that the wetland comes within 100 feet of the road; however, this area is outside t
50' study area and was not verified by the agencies.
VI- 185
-------
U.S 113 Jurisdictional Determination
Meeting Minutes
January 22 and 23, 1997
Page 3
Sta. 1315
West side The wooded area immediately north of the Snow Hill Mennonite
Ctoch near Test Plot 15 was reviewed. The agencies verified that jurisdiction*
wetlands do not exist in the area.
- West side. The Jurisdictional area within 100 feet of the U.S 113 is confined to
' channel. A scrub/shrub wetland fringe exists within the channel.
Wetland 9
East side Wetland boundary flags verified. The map should be re-labeled to
indtete tat emergent wetland are located outside of the tree-line. The drainage
ditch along U.S. 113 immediately north of Wetland 9 is Jurisdictional for a distance
of 50 feet past the last flag, and should be classified as PEMx.
Wetland 10 - West side. All flags (E7-1 to E7-10) were verified by the agencies with no
modification.
. East side. Agencies verified that Jurisdictional waters are confined to the
streambank, which has been channelized. The channel was not flagged.
Sta 1555
- East side, approximately 500 feet north of Newark Rd. The agencies verified that
juSdictional wetlands dLet exist in the wooded area. This area appears to be
effectively drained by drainage ditches. However, a small emergent wetland,
^dlinLtly soft ruk was identified along fi. south side of fce .wooded m.
within 50-feet of the road. The wetland was field measured to cover a 15 x50 area,
wS will be shown on the final wetland maps. No flags were placed around the
emergent wetland.
Three wet spots were observed in the agricultural field on the west
S^LTsuLn 1556 and Station 1561. One of the wet spots is wito ^00-feet of
mTroad. The agencies stated that NRCS photos shall be reviewed by SHA/CRI to
confirm and delineate any fanned wetlands in this area.
Sta 1575 - West side. The wastewater treatment pond for the Town of Newark is not
considered Jurisdictional waters by the agencies.
Wetland 12 -The wetland boundary was verified by the agencies with the following
modifications:
side, northern area
Flag W9-2 was moved 160-feet east to the edge of the phragmites at driveway
Flae W9-3 and W9-4 were moved 20-feet south to the edge of the tree-line.
Flag W9-9 should connect to Flag W9-15; Flags W9-10 to W9-14 were removed.
Flag W9-22 was verified without modification (last flag)
VI- 186
-------
U.S 113 Jurisdiction^ Determination
Meeting Minutes
January 22 and 23, 1997
Page 4
West side, southern area
• Flags W9-23,24, and 25 were moved 20-feet northeast.
• Flag W9-31 was moved 25-feet south
• Flag W9-32 (last flag) was verified without modification
. Ditch along road is jurisdiction^ (PEMx) for 200-feet south of Flag W9-29
East side, southern area
• Flag E9-1 moved 90-feet south
• Flag E9-2 moved 50-feet south
• Flag E9-16 moved 10-feet east
• Flag E9-18 (last flag) verified without modification
East side, northern area
• Flag E9-20 moved 20-feet west
• Flags E9-33, 34, and 35 were relocated to the toe of slope (SHA Survey Dept
has been instructed to survey new location of these flags)
Wetland 13 - West side. Flag W10-2 was moved 60-feet north along road. All other flagf
W10-1 to W10-11 were verified by the agencies. The channel within 75 feet o
the culvert shall be labeled as a perennial stream on the final wetland map.
East side. Flag E10-3 moved 50-feet west to edge of phagmites at culvert. Al
other flags (E10-1 to E10-11) were verified by the agencies.
Sta 1697 West side. The agencies confirmed that jurisdictional wetlands do not exis
within 100 feet of the road. Potential wetlands (not confirmed) exist outside o
the 100-foot study area in this location.
Wetland 14 - Wetland is outside the 50' study area and was not verified. The agencies verifie.
that no wetlands exist within 50-feet of the road.
Wetland 15 - All flags (1 to 12) were previously verified by the Corps independently after th
last field review was completed on November 27,1996.
Wetland 16 - West side. All flags (1 to 11) verified without modification
East side. Flag 5A moved 25-feet south (Note: Flagging had not yet bee
surveyed in this area; therefore, the survey plot will not need to be revised). ,
potential wetland exists outside the 50-foot study area, between Wetland 16 an
Goody Hill Road.
VI-187
-------
U.S 113 Jurisdictional Determination
Meeting Minutes
January 22 and 23, 1997
Page 5
West side. A depressional forested wetland was identified, but not flagged, on tiie
west side between Wetland 15 and Wetland 16. The agencies stated that NRCS
photos shall be reviewed by SHA/CRI to confirm and delineate any formed
wetlands in this area.
Sta 1733 -
Wetland 17 - Flag W14-2 was moved 55-feet north into a mowed
Wetland * g ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ t
revised). The Corps stated that the lawn portion of the wetland should be
identified as a "Landscaped Wetland".
Sta 1746- East side. A potential fanned wetland exists outside the 50-foot study area,
approximately 800-feet north of Goody Hill Road. The agencies stated ttiat
m.CS photos shall be reviewed by SHA/CRI to confirm and delineate any farmed
wetlands in this area.
WetlandlS- Westside. All flags (1 to 14) were verified by the agencies without modification.
East side. Six new flags (18A-1 to 18A-6) were placed between Sta. 176C I and
Sta 1 762. (SHA Survey Dept. has been instructed to survey new location of these
flags). Flags 18B-1 to 18B-6 were verified by the agencies.
Wetland 20 - All flags between 17-1 and 17-12 were verified by the agencies. Several flags
Wetland ZU ^^ ^^ t£> ^ road; howeyer> flag numbers were not noted because the
flags had not yet been surveyed.
Wetland 21 - East and West sides. All flags verified without modification.
Sta 2010 On new alignment in northern study area - Two new wetlands were previously
Sensed byTe agencies during the field review in November 1996 and have
.subsequently been flagged by CM. The wetlands were ?^N7" * J*£?
New5-l to 18. All flags were verified by the agencies without modification.
(SHA Survey Dept has been instructed to survey these new locations)
If there are any additions or deletions to these minutes, please contact Gary Jellick at (410) 956-
9000.
cc: Andy Parker (RKK)
VI-188
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
Sta te High way A dministra tion
David L. Wi
Secretary
Parker F. Wi
Administrator
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ATTN:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RE:
Lou Ege, Jr., Deputy Director
Project Planning Division
Sue Rajan
Susan IV:. Jacobs, Acting Chief
Environmental Programs Divisj
April 11, 1997
FMIS Nc.:
Descriotion:
WO 720B11
US 113 -- Snow hill to the Delaware Line
Wetland Mitigation Site Review-
Attached for your use are the minutes of the March 20, 27 and 28, 1997, Wetland
Mitigation Site Review meetings. These meetings established that the agencies concur
that wetland creation is possible along the US 113 Corridor. This is sufficient for the
agencies to evaluate the alternates retained for study, but does not commit the
agencies, or SHA, to any site for mitigation needs.
The Environmental Programs Division, at your request, is proceeding with the
remainder of the mitigation site search. EPD, in coordination with Coastal Resources
inc., the Office of Real Estate and the Project Planning Division, will begin making
property owner contacts to establish the availability of the identified sites. EPD will also
review the conceptual miiigation site plans that will be needed fcrthe FEIS and
developed by RK&K/CRI.
Please distribute these minutes to all interested parties. If you have any questions or
comments, please contact Robert Shreeve at (410) 545-8613.
SMJ/JWH/RES
cc: Joe Kresslein, PPD EPS
VI-1883
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
COASTAL
RESOURCES
INC
MINUTES OF MEETING
Project: U.S. Route 113, Snow Hill to Delaware State Line
Project No. WO 720-1-1-170-P
Date: March 20, 1997
Purpose: Field Review of Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites
Location: Snow Hill, Worcester County
In Attendence: Robert Shreeve, SHA-EPD
Michelle Gomez,USCOE
Al Kampmeyer MDE
Gary Jellick, CRI
The purpose of the meeting was to review potential wetland mitigation sites in the southern study
area that may be used to compensate for unavoidable wetlands impacts associated with the
project. The attendees met at the SHA District garage in Snow Hill at 10:00 a.m. on March 20,
1997. Gary Jellick provided draft copies of site location maps and summary tables for each
recommended site based on a preliminary review by SHA and CRI. The following general
comments were made by the agencies that would be applicable to all potential mitigation sites:
1. Adjacent land use (current and future) shall be identified as it relates to potential impact on
the mitigation sites (i.e., habitat value, hydrology).
2. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and USEPA shall be involved in ranking the suitability of
potential sites for wetland mitigation. (Note: The USFWS and USEPA are scheduled to
review mitigation sites on March 28,1997).
3. Archeological review of the sites shall be required before the agencies concur with the use of
the sites for wetland mitigation.
4. Consultation with the Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) shall be
conducted to verify the status of Prior Converted Cropland or Farmed Wetlands that may
exist within the proposed mitigation sites.
Vl-188b !
2988 Solomons Island Road, Edgewater, MD 21037
(410)956-9000 Bait. (410) 269-9269 DC (301)261-4805 FAX (410) 956-0566
-------
U.S 113
Meeting Minutes
March 20,1997
Page 2
The following wetland mitigation sites were reviewed by the agencies and were determined to be
suitable for additional on-site investigations. At this time, the sites shall be considered potential
mitigation sites for the purpose of the environmental document. Final agency concurrence on
each site for permitting purposes shall occur after more detailed studies are completed. Refer to
the attached table for a general description of each site.
Sites that are potentially suitable for wetland mitigation:
2A - 100' west of station 1035
3 -2000'east of station 1080
4 - 2500' east of station 1105
4A -1000' east of station 1132
14 - 3600' west of station 1775
14A - 2000' east of station 1735
16 - 1000' east of station 1865
16A - 100' west of station 1740
Site 6 (1500' east of station 1220) was reviewed and found to be unacceptable for additional
investigations because of questionable hydrology and the distance to the cypress swamp along
Patty's Branch. CRI and SHA will investigate another area to the south of Site 6 which may
offer a direct connection to the cypress swamp.
If there are any additions or deletions to these minutes, please contact Gary Jellick at (410) 956-
9000. ^ J
cc: Attendees
Sue Rajan (SHA-PPD)
Lisa Zeirner (RKK)
VI-188C
-------
COASTAL
RESOURCES
INC
Project:
Date:
Purpose:
Location:
In Attendence:
MINUTES OF MEETING
U.S. Route 113, Snow Hill to Delaware State Line
Project No. WO 720-1-1-170-P
March 27-28, 1997
Field Review of Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites
Snow Hill, Worcester County
Jack Hett, SHA-EPD
Michelle Gomez,USCOE
David Sutherland, USFWS
Danielle Algazi, EPA
Al Kampmeyer, MDE (3/27 only)
Gary Jellick, CRT (3/28 only)
Ricardo Gonzalez, CRI (3/27 only)
t
The purpose of the meeting was to review potential wetland mitigation sites in the northern and
southern study area that may be used to compensate for unavoidable wetlands impacts associated
with the project. The attendees met at the SHA District garage in Snow Hill at 10:00 a.m. on
March 27, 1997. Ricardo Gonzalez provided draft copies of site location maps and summary
tables for each recommended site based on a preliminary review by SHA and CRI.
The following wetland mitigation sites were reviewed by the agencies and were determined to be
suitable for additional on-site investigations. At this time, the sites shall be considered potential
mitigation sites for the purpose of the environmental document. Final agency concurrence on
each site for permitting purposes shall occur after more detailed studies are completed.
The following sites were reviewed on March 27, 1997. All attendees agreed that the sites are
suitable for additional investigations:
Vl-188d
2988 Solomons Island Road, Edgewater, MD 21037
(410)956-9000 Bait. (410) 269-9269 DC (301) 261-4805 FAX (410) 956-0566
-------
U.S 113
Meeting Minutes
March 27-28, 1997
Page 2
alignment is selected.
Stati°n 201°- tte **•*» of "*"" — win depend on which
Site 28-1100' west of station 2215. Some concern raised by the agencies regarding the
distance to the railroad tracks and how much natural buffer could be mf intained be^een
tracKs and the mitigation site.
234°' AU
agreed that Site 32 is acceptable for
additional investigations.
• Site 33- 100' west of station 2335 (May not be suitable if alternative 4N is selected)
hwesti1 tit?* ^ WCre reviewed.and found to be unacceptable by the agencies for additional
j tjucoiionaDie nyoxoiogy, and the location between existins and
Pa^S^££ adJaC6nt t0 Stati°n 2°80' °n ^ ^ Slde °f Rt H3' and Site 21A is
;add[ti°n' ^ C°rPs of Engineers questioned the suitability of Site 22 because of adjacent land
Rt on « Av?y, iTf ?e P0t!ntal f°r the Site t0 pr°vide wildlife habitat The site is bounded by
Th/rwlc !' . Tl W6St' and has a &avel driveway along the northern boundary.
The Corps also questioned the source of hydrology for the site. The SHA agreed that Site 22
WOUlfl nOT nP* f*f^n01/^07*0/3 r* * • • . , o •»** fci***i, ^jA LW <^*^<
^/i iiiidiy ililUgalloU SllC 101* Iil6 DUTpOSC OJL tll6 GnviTonTTi(a'ni'5i]
^^Qni'u e yS^S n°ted that the Site Was currently bemg used by shore birds and v
as the result of flooding caused by a recently constructed berm on the adjacent property.
March 28. 1997
The group met at the SHA Snow Hill garage at 8:30 a.m. to discuss the sites that were reviewed
on Ae previous day, and to discuss the wetland function assessment methodology presented in
hat wfuTedTT CUment1 ?6 agendeS d° n0t aCCept the SHA checklist methodology
d^I?Jf ?i environmental foment, and stated that a preferred alternative could not be
value? a m°re ng°rOUS M meth°d WaS US6d t0 evaluate wetland Actions and
h^°f^ngi!!eers recommended, and the SHA agreed, that the New England method
should be used for the wetland function assessment. The group decided that the field work will
foof f°r ^ n0rth ^ °ne for the south- *"» fie^ work will have to be
t ' fi"7 • ° T^ ** SCheduIe f°r ^ env^^ental document. The Corps of
f K ? f! assessment could be completed on the basis of "weTland
systems , whereby similar wetlands would be grouped together for the purpose of data gathering
The agencies will report back to the SHA regarding the potential field dateTfor availabk staff
VI-1886
-------
U.S U}
Meeting Minutes
March 27-28, 1997
Page 3
Site 6A- 1500' east of station 1220. This is an alternative to Site 6, which was previously
eliminated from further consideration on March 20, 1997. Groundwater at Site 6A was
measured at 3.5' below the ground surface in an open borehole. The Corps questioned the
amount of cut that would be needed (approx. 5'), which would allow the site to function as a
floodplain of Pumell Branch (cypress area).
Site 10- 600' east of station 1450.
additional investiaations.
All agencies agreed that Site 10 is acceptable for
• Site 11- 1000' east of station 1520. The agencies prefer the area that is currently a horse
pasture to allow a connection with existing wetlands in the pasture.
• Site 12- 1000' west of station 1540. The far western portion of the field should be further
investigated for a possible connection to Coonsfoot Branch.
• Site 12A- 300' east of station 1560. All agencies agreed that Site 12A is acceptable for
additional investigations.
The group field review ended at 1:00 p.m., but sites 2A, 3, 4 and 4A were reviewed in the
afternoon by the USFWS and CRI (the Corps, MDE, and SHA previously reviewed these site on
March 20, 1997). The USFWS agreed that these sites should be considered for additional
investigations. The USFWS and CRI also identified one additional site that may be suitable for
mitigation in the area of the cypress swamp. The site is located 800' east of station 1230
between the railroad tracks and the cypress swamp. Portions of the site are used for pasture,
which comes within 20' of the swamp. A floodplain connection could be made by excavating
from 2-6 feet of soil. Approximately 2 acres may be suitable for mitigation. The site has been
designated as Site 6B and shall be reviewed by the SHA and the agencies during subsequent field
work in the project area.
If there are any additions or deletions to these minutes, please contact Gary Jellick at (410) 956-
9000.
cc: Attendees
Sue Rajan (SHA-PPD)
Lisa Zeimer (RKX)
Vl-188f
-------
United States Department of the Interior.;,,
wFV'
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
u
fop. 28
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
April 19, 1995
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr., Deputy Director
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
Attn: Joseph R. Kresslein, Assistant Division Chief
Environmental Planning, Project Planning Division
Re: Contract #AW 821-108-070
US 113 Improvements
Worcester County, Maryland
Dear Mr. Ege:
This responds to your March 13, 1995, request for information supporting your
investigation of natural resources within the above referenced project area.
We have reviewed the information you enclosed and are providing comments in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seg.)-
Except for occasional transient individuals, no other Federally listed or
proposed endangered or threatened species are known to exist in the project
area. Should project plans change, or should additional information on the
distribution of listed or proposed species become available, this
determination may be reconsidered.
This response relates only to threatened ' and endangered species under our
jurisdiction. It does not address Service concerns pursuant to the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act or any other legislation. For information on other
rare species, including state-listed species, you should contact Ms. Lynn
Davidson of the Maryland Natural Heritage Program at (410) 974-2870.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide information relative to fish and
wildlife resources. If you have any questions on these comments, please
contact Mark Sherfy of this office at (410) 573-4542.
c
Sincerely,
VI- 189
John P.
Supervisor
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
February 21, 1997
Mr. J. Rodney Little
Director
Maryland Historical Trust
100 Community Place
Crownsville MD 21032-2023
Dear Mr. Little:
The US 113 corridor is experiencing a severe deterioration in safety and service,
and the State Highway Administration (SHA) is proceeding with project planning to
upgrade this road from south of Snow Hill to the Delaware State line. This section of
US 113 has experienced a number of serious accidents over the last few years, including
three fatal accidents since mid-December, 1996. The project is receiving a high level of
interest from local citizen groups and local, State and Federal elected officials. Both
Senator Mikulski and Congressman Gilchrest have expressed a great deal of interest in
the project.
As a result of the number and severity of fatal accidents along US 113, we have
expedited the project schedule. "We are currently preparing a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and are planning a Public Hearing for May 29. We expect to
complete planning this Winter.- Early this Summer, we intend to select an alternate and
immediately begin final engineering. We have been coordinating with your agency and
have been receiving good cooperation from your staff.
You and your staffs continued cooperation in expediting reviews and providing
required information would be greatly appreciated and is necessary to meet our
scheduled commitments. If we can be of any help to you in this regard, please let me
know.
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
cc:
The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Member, U.S. House of Representatives
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, Member, U.S. Senate
VI- 190
Maryland Relay Service for impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
Sta te High way A dministra tion
David L. V
Secretary
Parker F. \
Administrate
February 21, 1997
,c
The Honorable Jane Nishida
Secretary
Maryland Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore MD 21224
Dear Secretary Nishida:
The US 113 corridor is experiencing a severe deterioration in safety and service, ar
the State Highway Administration (SHA) is proceeding with project planning to upgrade th
road from south of Snow Hill to the Delaware State line. This section of US 113 has
experienced a number of serious accidents over the last few years, including three fatal
accidents since mid-December, 1996. The project is receiving a high level of interest fron
local citizen groups and local, State and Federal elected officials. Both Senator Mikulski z
Congressman Gilchrest have expressed a great deal of interest in the project.
As a result of the number and severity of fatal accidents along US 113, we have
expedited the project schedule. We are currently preparing a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and are planning a Public Hearing for May 29. We expect to complete planning
this Winter. Early this Summer, we intend to select an alternate and immediately begin fu
engineering. We have been coordinating with your agency and have been receiving good
cooperation from your staff.
You and your staffs continued cooperation in expediting reviews and providing
required information would be greatly appreciated and is necessary to meet our scheduled
commitments.^ If we can be of any help to you in this regard, please let me know.
cc:
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Member, U.S. House of Representatives
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, Member, U.S. Senate
VI-191
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore. Maryland 21202
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
February 21, 1997
The Honorable John Griffin
Secretary
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis MD 21401-2397
Dear Secretary Griffin:
The US 113 corridor is experiencing a severe deterioration in safety and service, and
the State Highway Administration (SHA) is proceeding with project planning to upgrade this
road from south of Snow Hill to the Delaware State line. This section of US 113 has
experienced a number of serious accidents over the last few years, including three fetal
accidents since mid-December, 1996. The project is receiving a high level of interest from
local citizen groups and local, State and Federal elected officials. Both Senator Mikulski and
Congressman Gilchrest have expressed a great deal of interest in the project.
As a result of the number and severity of fatal accidents along US 113, we have
expedited the project schedule. We are currently preparing a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and are planning a Public Hearing for May 29. We expect to complete planning
this Winter. Early this Summer, we intend to select an alternate and immediately begin final
engineering. We have been coordinating with your agency and have been receiving good
cooperation from your staff.
You and your staffs continued cooperation in expediting reviews and providing
required information would be greatly appreciated and is necessary to meet our scheduled
commitments. If we can be of any help to you in this regard, please let me know.
cc:
'Parker F.Williams
Administrator
The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Member, U.S. House of Representatives
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, Member, U.S. Senate
VI- 192
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1 -800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
Mary/and Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. W
Secretary
Parker F. V\
Administrator
February 21, 1997
c
Mr. Ronald Kreitner
Director
Maryland Office of Planning
301 West Preston Street
Baltimore MD 21^01-2365.
Dear Mr. Kreii
The US 113 corridor is experiencing a severe deterioration in safety and service, an
the State Highway Administration (SHA) is proceeding with project planning to upgrade th.
road from south of Snow Hill to the Delaware State line. This section of US 113 has
experienced a number of serious accidents over the last few years, including three fatal
accidents since mid-December, 1996. The project is receiving a high level of interest frorr
local citizen groups and local, State and Federal elected officials. Both Senator Mikulski a
Congressman Gilchrest have expressed a great deal of interest in the project.
As a result of the number and severity of fatal accidents along US 113, we have
expedited the project schedule. We are currently preparing a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and are planning a Public Hearing for May 29. We expect to complete planning
this Winter. Early this Summer, we intend to select an alternate and immediately begin fir
engineering. We have been coordinating with your agency and have been receiving good
cooperation from your staff.
You and your staffs continued cooperation in expediting reviews and providing
required information would be greatly appreciated and is necessary to meet our scheduled
commitments. If we can be of any help to you in this regard, please let me know.
cc:
'Parker F>Williams
Administrator
The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Member, U.S. House of Representatives
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, Member, U.S. Senate
VJ- 193
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
MARYLAND
STATE HIGHWAY-ADMINISTRATION
f
INTERAGENCY REVIEW MEETING
May 17, 1995
State Highway Administration
211 E. Madison Street
Baltimore, Maryland 2-1202
VI-194
-------
SHA would begin the section 106 consultation when we start with Mr*
QUESTTnM/rnxjxfpflT.
MS. CHRTS nrrrr-H p^^y
There would be some identification.
QUESTTOM^OMMPNT.
MR. DAVF T flWTQN. FHWA;
..^sssssrs;;;zr±"==-
were not picked up before.
C
ontract No. AW 82 1-1.08-070 P
US 1 1 3: Snow Hill to Delaware
State Line in Worcester County
Status: Purpose and Need
Project Manager: Mr. Leroy Carrigan x 4582
Envn-onmental Manager: Ms. Lorraine Strowxl 1.84
(T
VI- 195
23
-------
.MR. PAUL MALONEY. SHA:
US 113 is a major highway on the Delmarva peninsula. Combined with
US 13 and US50, they form the backbone of the transportation of the lower
Eastern Shore of Maryland and Sussex County, Delaware. US 113 directly links
three of Worcester County's four incorporated areas: Berlin, Snow Hill, the
County Seat, and Pokomoke City. Also it indirectly serves a fourth which is
Ocean City. • •
During the vacation season. Ocean City is the second largest city in
Mar/land because of vacations. This facility is classified as a rural principal
arterial on the federal classification system and as an intermediate arterial on
the state functional classification system.
US 113 north and south of the project limits, which is the Delaware state
line, and south of Snow Hill is a four lane divided highway. A 4.4 mile segment of
US 113 around Berlin is already a dualized highway. In Delaware the remaining
two lane undivided portion of US 113 from Millford to Georgetown is currently
being reconstructed as a four lane divided highway.
The comprehensive development plan for Worcester County, Maryland,
adopted in 1989. identifies US 113 as a key element of the county's regional
arterial highway system. The plan recognizes the need to upgrade US 113 and
recommends that Worcester County work with the state of Maryland to develop a
plan of improvement for MD 90 and US 113 that meets the needs of the county.'
Project planning studies were conducted in the early 1970's and an alternate was
selected at that time. Since no right-of-way was preserved, development
occurred along the alignment.
Another study was initiated in the late 1980's to address the current
environmental regulations and update the previous study which had become
dated. Alternatives and their impacts were identified. An alternatives public
meeting was held on November 19, 1990 in Berlin, Immediately after the hearing,
the project was dropped.
24
VI-196
-------
study of MD ,13 ra broken »,o
highway. From Pokomoke to
.ho accldent rate is slightly Io
rate is slightly higher than fte
H •
" "nCt Segmenl of **
y rate is significantly higher tha te
section north of Berlin has a fLlity "J^en
veWde miles trcweled which is
2.6 acciaents per
while in the year 2015,10,300 to ,5 OOo
versus the year 2015,
C to E range in
and
VI- 197
25
^^ wh«- *•
TT "
CadentSperIO°
'° 9'8°° ta
'"4ADTiS IL
™
'°
-------
ranging from 5.300 to 12,000 in 1995 to 9.250 to 16.000 in the year 2015.
Although the accident rate is not high compared to the state wide average,
the fatality rate in the northern undivided section is higher than the statewide
average. SHA would expect safety to improve with the construction of the divided
highway. Access controls would provide the highest degree of safety.
US 113 does not have a continuous cross section in Mar/land. Dualization
of these two segments will provide a continuous 4 lane divided US 113 highway
on the Delmarva peninsula.
MS. LORRAINE STROW. SHA:
The existing land use in the 113 corridor includes all usage in Worcester
county with the exception of Ocean. City. There are rural low density, residential.
agricultural, forested and open lands.
The northeast corner of the county is expected to grow the most as a result
of its proximity to Ocean City. The town of Ocean City is close to the build out
condition. Most of the new tourist development will be occurring east of US 113 in
the West Ocean City/Ocean Pines areas.
The southern segment of the project from south of Berlin to south of Snow
Hill is more rural and agricultural. In order to preserve the natural areas and
farming areas, there is a county policy to direct growth to the existing population
centers including Berlin and Snow Hill.
There are two major water areas, the coastal area sub basin and the
Pokomoke River. Many tributaries feed into each one of them. SHA's
environmental concerns involve all of the crossings, wetlands, forest, and flood
plains connected with all of those.
These streams are Class I with in stream restrictions of March 1 to June 15,
which expands to February 15 to June 15 in the Pokomoke River area. The extent
of flood plain impacts and wetland impacts are unknown at this time.
VI-198
26
-------
u
There are no threatened or endangered species. In the Car/ Branch area,
there is an endangered black banded sunfish and in the area of Goodhill Branch,
there is a rare seaside ulder. From SHA's previous study, the area north of Berlin
concluded that the St. Martins Church and cemetery were national register sites.
The Lemual Shal House was national register eligible. Those sites are in the
Shal area.
Several known historic and prehistoric archeological sites exist in the
area. The potential for others exist within or near the project. It does not appear
that SHA will approach any parklands or the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. BETH COLE:
Stated that St. Martins is on the wrong side of the road. Pointed out that
there is a Maryland Historical Trust easement on that property and MHT will be •
very concerned about "avoiding impact. Part of the western county is one of the
few areas where historic burials have been found, so everyone should be aware
of that.
QUESTION/COMMENT-
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
Asked' are there special regulations for native american sites.
RESPONSE:
MS. BETH COLE:
Responded it is a separate act.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
VI- 199
27
-------
MS RFTHHANNOLD:
Stated they are confused as to purpose and need of this project.
RESPONSE: '
MR. LEROY CARRIGAN. SHA:
Stated that basically, traffic wasn't the overriding factor of problems for the
project." SHA does have some concentration at the north end where the fatalities
were higher. Stated that there is a group called CRASH,- county residents action
for safer highways, and they are advocating the dualization of MD113 and also
MD90.
Stated that they are basing most of their reasons for the dualization as
safety. In the last 6 1/2 years from '89'through "95 there have been 18 fatalities
along this roadway. From 78 to 93 in a 16 year period, there were 38 fatalities •
and the number killed was 45.
Stated that SHA does not have it broken down into seasons. SHA does
have an accident map with which they will make up another map and list the
fatalities by year. SHA has the dates by year, but not by seasons. Stated that it is
not just the summer time, there have been 3 fatalities in this year.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. PAUL WETTLAUFER COE:
Asked how often are trucks involved.
RESPONSE:
MR. LEROY CARRIGAN. SHA:
Stated he is not sure.
VI- 200
28
-------
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. RICHARD SPENCER. COE:
Asked about fixed object collisions. Stated that the north section had the
highest fatality rate, but there is not much given for the northern section. SHA
also says that resurfacing was done and that SHA super elevated portions of the
highway which eliminated some accidents. Asked what portion of that c:d it help.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
Stated there is not data to support that but the fatalities in the north end
are still occurring. SHA is working on a map of accidents of all types and
another with just fatalities to show where the fatalities happened.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
Stated that SHA will revise the purpose and need.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. ROY DENMARK:
Stated that he is curious of how the state regulation guidelines fit in with
everyone's needs. If these people from CRASH weren't pushing it, would SHA
have that data.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. DAVE LAWTON:
VI- 201 29
-------
Stated that he thinks SHA needs to be careful in what is being set up as
the purpose and need. The solution to those problems may be very different from
what :he political interests are looking for. Stated there was more work to be
done on purpose and need.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. RICHARD SPENCER. COE:
•Stated that with the data that is provided, he only sees one level of service
that would be unacceptable. Whatever purpose and need is agreed to, it is going
to drive what alternatives are investigated. Stated that if he was pressed, he
would say there is a problem, and it may just involve an interchange or stop
signal, but it would have to be studied.
QUESTION/COMMENT: :•
MR. LEROYCARRIGAN. SHA:
Stated he can address that. SHA had this project before and
environmental traffic had to be done for the year 1995. When they did the 20 15
numbers, that was build year but it was not stated.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. MARYANN BOYER: '
Asked if that means that the levels of service that are projected will be
changed.
RESPONSE:
MR T PROY CARRIGAN. SHA:
Stated that some will change. The A's and B's would not change, but the F
VI- 202
-------
would go to D or E.
QUESTION/COMMEN
:
MS. CHRIS DUTCH!
'Asked if the traffic counts taken were also for the southern section.
RESPONSE:
MR. LERQY CARRIGAN. SHA:
Slated lhal previously it was only in the norlh end, but now SHA is doing
the whole job.
QUESTION/COMMENT!
MR. RICHARD SPENCER. COE:
Stated that he concurs. If COE can get the documents ahead of time, they
will come with concurrence to the meeting.
OUESTTON/GOMMFMT-
MR.
Asked if anyone did not get the documents ahead of time. Stated that the
documents were new.
QUESTION/COMMENT;
MR. RICHARD SPENCER COE:
Regarding the statewide averages, asked if that is a publication that gives
ranges?
VI- 203
31
-------
RESPONSE:
MR. LEROY CARRIGJ
Stated that he knows people in the Office of Traffic and Safety compiled
that from state trooper accidents over the state.
QUESTION/COMMENT: '
k. 1
MR. RICHARD SPENCER. COE:
Requested statistics to see if averages are higher than normal.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. DAVE IAWTON: .
Stated that SHA needs to be careful how it is worded because if a loved
one died in that area, it should not be called non significant.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. BETH HANNOLD:
Stated that if it is tied to a range with significant stated above that, then
there should not be a problem.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. DAVE LAWTON:
SHA can state whether it is significantly above or below.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
32
VI- 204
-------
MR. LEROY CARRIGAN. SHA:
Responded that if it was a significant amount, it would be on the map. Tc
be stated would have said more if there was more to say.
RESPONSE:
MR. RICHARD SPENCER. COE:
Stated that if they say it was-statistically significant, then he will know whc
they are saying.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. MARYANN BOYER. EPA:
In general, the EPA agrees that, with regards to purpose and need, it was
difficult to determine that there was a problem.. Stated that she thought she reac
somewhere that most of the accidents were alcohol induced and if that is so, tha
can't be controlled. Asked why the project was dropped after the public hearing
in '90.
C
RESPONSE:
MR. LEROY CARRIGAN. SHA:
Responded that it was dropped so Project Planning could turn it over to th
district to do spot improvements. They have done some improvements such as
signals and flashers and a turn lane.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. MARYANN BQYER FPA-
Stated that as far as the documentation, they liked the information, but it
VI- 205 33
-------
v/ent beyond the purpose and need because it gave different information, it
-.vouid be more helpful if it stated the problem, with the accident data to beef up
the case, why there is a problem and how it would be addressed.
RESPONSE:
MR. LEROYCARRIGAN. SHA:
Replied that those comments would be the same on any project. SHA has
an outline that they use to discuss these points and SHA has done that on every
purpose and need.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
V
MS. CHRIS DUTCH:
Regarding the NEPA process, the purpose and need typically includes this
information except for the part about dualization, which should not be addressed
at this point. The background and history is a part of the process and that is the
way all the purposes and needs are done.
RESPONSE:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA-
Stated that it is what SHA agreed to in the NEPA/404 process. The
environmental inventory that is included is not intended to be part of the purpose
and need. It is to give up front information on the environmental features of the .
project area.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. ROY DENMARK
Asked when SHA presents something for concurrence, is there a separate
34 '
VI-206
i
-------
purpose and need statement that is specific and narrowed down to what the
agencies are concurring?
RESPONSE:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
Stated yes.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
Stated he is curious about the traffic figures that are projected for 2015.
Asked how SHA got 250,000 people.in Ocean City, is it the most that is going
back and forth CHI Route 50?
RESPONSE::
MR. LEROFCARRIGAN. SHA:
Stated that there are other routes in Ocean City, such as Route 90, Route
50, down through Delaware, and other routes. 90 is a separate project being
worked on presently. With Route 90, the state is looking at putting down a guard
rail or a small median with some landscaping over the next 6 years or so.
QUEST03COMMENT- •
MR. SEANSMITH. DNR;
Asked if SM investigated non tidal wetlands of special concern.
RESPONSE
c-
MS. LORBUNE STRQW. SHA;
VI- 207
35
-------
Stated SKA did not investigate non-tidal wetlands yet. SHA found none in
this area.
UESTION/COMMENT-
MRSEANSMJTR DNR:
proxy?
Asked if there are any structures that are associated with a water way
RESPONSE:
MR. LEROY CARRIGAN. S!
Responded that there is one bridge by Snow Hill.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. SEAN SMITH. DNR:
Asked would the proposal be to add an additional lane or change the
structure?
RESPONSE:
MS. LTND^ jJTFTfiAUGH. SHA:
Stated she doesn't know.
QUESTION/COMMENT;
MR. SUMNER CROSBY. EPA:
Stated that, with regards to truck traffic, it seems that is a big play with
continuity. The number that was in this printed document, compared to SHA's
VI- 208
36
-------
c-
oral presentationjumped up five percent. Asked if SHA feels comfortable with 15
percent truck trafic.
RESPOND:
MR. LERCTCARRIGAN. SHA:
Stated thalwas the number supplied to SHA. Added that many of the
trucks aren't necessarily tractor trailers, they have to do with the poultry industry.
OUESTIQS7COMMENT:
MR. SUMt€R CROSBY. EPA:
Asked whaJhappens when SHA dualizes this?
RESPONSE
MR. LEROJCARRIGAN. SHA:
Stated thatthe people feel differently. They think people are jumping to
this road to avoidfie scales. They feel that there won't be more trucks because
of dualization bemuse the trucks are already using it.
QUESTIOIgCOMMENT:
MR. RICHJBD SPENCER:
Asked wesBthere any studies done on this?
RESPONSE
MR. LEROICARRIGAN. SHA:
Stated he idrit know. SHA hasn't done any on this project now. We could
VI- 209 37
-------
go out and observe trucks and with the count they just aid, maybe they did do a
separate count for trucks.
Contract No. P 128-102-371 P
MD 223: MD 4 to Temple Hill Road
in Prince Georges County
Status: Alternates Retained for Detailed Study
Project Manager: Mr. Monty Rahman x6437
Environmental Manager: Ms. Lorraine Strow xl 184
MR. MONTY RAHMAN. SHA:
The Project Planning Division has completed initial studies to evaluate
feasible options to improve safety and operational characteristics along MD 223
from Temple Hill Road to MD 4. •
Although MD 223 is a minor arterial that handles significant cross county .
traffic, the segment of MD 223 from Temple .Hill Road to MD 4 is mostly a two lane
roadway, much of which is substandard in its horizontal and vertical alignment.
The section of MD 223 through the Clinton commercial district is a four lane
curbed roadway with intermittent sidewalks along both sides of the roadway.
The planned residential and commercial development in this area will
result in congestion and traffic volumes, too large for the existing roadway system
to handle safely and efficiently. In addition, fixed object opposite direction and
left turn collision rates are statistically significantly higher than the state wide
VI- 210
38
-------
MARYLAND STATE
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
INTERAGENCY REVIEW MEETING
September 18, 1996
State Highway Administration
211 E. Madison Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
VI-211
-------
Project No. WO 720B11
U.S. 113: Snow Hill to Delaware State Line
in Worchester County
Status: Alternates Retained for Detailed Study
Project Manager: Leroy Carrigan x8525
Environmental Manager: Lorraine Strow x8527
MR. LEE CARRIGAN. SHA:
In January of 1995 US 113 was initiated for dualization from Snow
Hill to Delaware line. The project consists of 2 study areas. The southern
study area is from Snow Hill to just south of Berlin and that's about 16
miles and the northern study area is from North US 50 to the Delaware
line and that is approximately 7 1/2 miles.
The job is in SHA's (CTP) Consolidated Transportation Plan for
planning studies only. After the study was initiated in 1995, the purpose
and need was presented at the interagency review meeting of May of
1995. Following that meeting we conducted an alternates public
workshop in November of 1995. The purpose and need statement was
revised in July of this year and SHA basically has concurrence on a
purpose and need statement.
MS. LORRAINE STROW. SHAr
Land uses in the area are rural, low density residential,
agricultural, forested and open lands. The southern segment is more
rural in agriculture than the northern segment and the northeast comer of
the county is expected to grow the most as a result of its proximity to
Ocean City.
The project lies within two major watershed areas, the coastal area
sub basin and the Pokomoke River. Many tributaries feed into them.
Everything south of Newark flows into the Pokomoke.
VI- 212
13
-------
• The crossings, wetlands, forest and floodplcrins connected with
them are one of SHA's main concerns. The Maryland DNR classifies all
the streams as Use I for water contact and recreation purposes and
would require construction restrictions from March 1 through June 15 for
most streams and February 15 through June 15 for streams in the
Pokomoke River area where DNR has documented yellow perch.
The approximate impact to 100 year floodpkan which is shown in
the bright blue on the mapping in the southern study area, that is
widening of the existing US 113 we have an approximate acreage of 6
acres. In the northern study area on the widening alternate, the acreage
is approximately 7 acres.
In the northern study area the relocated alternate or the alternate
which is on relocation for most of the segment north of US50, the -
approximate wetland impact is 4 acres. '""
Each of the alternates would impact wetlands. Based on '-•
preliminary estimates, in the southern study area on the existing US 113
alternate approximately 8 acres of impact, for the widening of existing US
113 approximately 10 acres in the northern study area and for the
relocated alternate we have approximately 29 acres of impact. —
The wetlands are presently being delineated. A jurisdictional
wetland review was scheduled for October 1, 2 and 3 but we will need to
schedule that later.
There are no federally listed threatened or endangered species in
the project. The Maryland DNR has identified four rare or endangered
plant species known to occur in wetlands in close proximity to the
southern study area. Only one of these, the seaside alder, which is rare,
has been identified within the area of potential impact.
They have also documented an occurrence of the black banded •
sunfish in Carry Branch in the northern most part of the study area.
. Prime farm land soils and soils of statewide importance occur
throughout the project area. Residential and business displacements are
another concern. Additional right-of-way will be required for each of the
build alternates. In the southern study area for the widening alternate 5,
'ft
VI- 213
14
-------
cdl residential relocations are apparent.
In the northern study area for the widening alternate, 17 residential
and 2 business displacements and for the alternate on relocation in the
northern study area, five residences and one business displacement.
SHA does not impact the minority community near Bishop, and
does not impact any park or recreational area. There are some parks
shown in dark green but the project does not come close to them.
Several historic standing structures are located along US 113 in the
project area that are National Register or National Register eligible. SHA
is still coordinating with MHT on these sites. None of the historical
structures are in the southern study area. Beginning with Irma Norbert
Davis farm, there is a question on the eligibility of this property. There is
also question as to whether it would be impacted by alternate 3, the
widening alternate. SHA has not coordinated with MHT for the boundary
for it. We only have coordinated and concurred with two boundaries so
far. All the boundaries shown at this meeting are not concurred with
boundaries except for two.
The next is Vic's Country Store which is considered eligible for
National Register. The northern widening alternate would impact this
resource and again SHA has not coordinated on the boundary.
The next one, the Hole's Farm/Mariner Farm is considered National
Register eligible. Both of the alternates may impact this site. The
consultant is recommending a 1 acre parcel that would include the
building which is significant for its architecture and then the out buildings.
Now Old St. Martin's Church is on the National Register and SHA
is avoiding this with both alternates. SHA is aware of the community's
sensitivity to he church and the fact that MHT holds an easement on the
property. That is one of the boundaries that we have coordinated with the
trust with and we have their concurrence on.
Next the Shell Store is considered eligible for the National Register
and the widening alternate appears that it would impact the Shell Store.
However, we have not coordinated on the boundary, so that is not a
certainty.
VI- 214
15
-------
The Beouchomp Feed Store Buildings, it appears that both
alternates would impact them, they are considered eligible for the
National Register.
The trans peninsula marker is considered eligible for the National
Register. Both alternates would avoid this. The state line marker is also
considered eligible and it is outside our study area.
There are numerous archeology sites in the project vicinity, both
historic and pre-historic within or near the project limits. Others are likely
to cccur. because of the geography of the area, .the pre historic and .
because based on the long history of activity in the study area and the
integrity of at least parts of the US 1 13 alignment, historic archeological
sites are considered likely to occur. ~-- r
Air quality and noise analysis will be required and have not yet"
been done. An initial site assessment for hazardous waste liability has
identified 35 potential sources from industrial, commercial, municipal and
residential properties. • -=•
AN. SHA:
Alternates retained: SHA is going to retain the no build alternate.
The no build alternate would not provide a significant improvements,
minor improvements would occur as part of normal maintenance and
safety, but it wouldn;t reduce the capacity or accident rate. Spot
improvements could continue with funding from the district level.
Besides the no build, SHA are going to keep TSM alternates.
Transportation system management alternates, they would provide, it
would provide improvements to the existing roadway without major
alteration to enhance safety and reduce traffic congestion. The
improvements would be part of an integral plan of safety and capacity
improvements as well as traffic management strategies to provide
relatively low refinements to the existing transportation system.
- These TSM alternates include the continued short term spot
improvements by the district such as signing, marking, streetlighting,
warning flashers, traffic signals, intersection relocation. But they would
also address longer term improvements with additional turning,
VI-215
16
-------
acceleration and bypass lanes. Some skid resistant paving overlays and
the limit of passing through intersection areas. These improvements
would be prioritized on a detailed accident and traffic analysis.
The long term improvements of the projects, we would have the
dualization on the existing alignment and also the dualization on
relocation, but the relocation would only be in the northern area.
The dualization on the. existing alignments would involve the
construction of a two new lane roadway adjacent to the existing facility
with the retention of the existing roadway whether it be the north or
southbound lanes in that case.
The new roadway would generally be constructed on either the
east or the west side of the existing roadway to minimize impacts to the
natural environment and reduce a number of residential and commercial
displacements. The typical roadway section would consist of two 12 foot
lanes in each direction, a 34 foot grass depressed median and 10 foot
outside shoulders with 20 feet of safety grading where possible.
So on the alternates that SHA will retain along the existing
roadway, the new roadway would parallel it basically on the west side for
quite a distance.
The alternates would then transition on curves and then continue
on all the way through the south area. SHA tried to reduce the impacts to
the environment and to commercial and residential houses, on the east
and west side.
On the north end SHA has also retained along the existing
roadway. There are a couple areas where even though the alternate is
along the existing roadway, in general, to try to add one lane SHA
proposes using the two existing lanes with a median and add the other
paving. In certain areas because there were quite a few residential
homes and historical properties.
QUESTION/COMMENT: '
MR. BRUCE GREY. SHAr
VI-216
-------
Asked could you reference the areas you are talking about?
RESPONSE:
MRLEECARRIGAN SHA-
The first area where the alignment is off the existing road was south
of the St. Martin's Church. Another area where we actually come off the
existing road is near the Lemual Showell House and because it had the
bad geometries a little north of the Showell House, the alignment stayed
on relocation here even though we are grilling it the existing alignment.
Basically SHA followed the existing road again and proposed the removal
of a bad curve around Jarvis Road and then followed the existing road to
the railroad crossing toward the north end of the project and smoothed
out that crossing a little bit until we get to the Delaware state line.
That is all the alignments along the existing roadway. The
alternates in the north area that SHA has dropped are called 4N, and in
one area it was called 4NA SHA has dropped that. Sha also dropped 4N
in the area to the west of the St. Martin's Church between basically Shal
and the graded out interchange area.
On the east side of Showell SHA has dropped Altmate 4N option A.
It would be a wider take of wetlands than what SHA decided to keep in.-
this area and also there is quite a bit of construction happening along •
Shingle Landing Road in this area and the wetlands were widest around
Birch Branch.
The alternates retained starting at US 50, it was 4N coming across
on the west side, it would make use of the interchange area or the part
that was graded out west of US 113. Then to thesouth it was basically 4N
option A.
Then SHA has retained what basically what would resemble option
B except it was modified and shifted, would have less relocations in this
area and'it would also be a crossing that would be narrower at the
wetland associated with Middle Branch.
The alignment does follow along the existing road for quite a
distance and then goes back off before MD 610 and because there are
VI- 217
18
-------
numerous relocations in this area that SHA developed an alternate that
would tie back into US 113 existing right at the Delaware state line.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. GREG GOLDEN. DNR:
First I want to say that for DNR, Larry Hughes would be on this
project, but usually I end up coming to the meetings. Since one of these
alternatives follows an existing road and one has a lot of new alignments,
you could choose a combination of those I guess depending on each
section?
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR T.F^r:ARRTGAN. SHA:
Responded yes.
QUESTION/COMMENT-
MR. GREG GOLDEN, DNR:
The only other thing, he asked whether potentially two numbers
were interchanged on this impact sheet.
RESPONSE:
MR T.FF;r!ftRRIGAN. SHA:
Asked which numbers he was talking about?
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. GREG GOLDEN, DNR:
Regarding the floodplain numbers on 3 and 4, he wanted to look at
the maps, but I see that those have been changed somewhat.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
VI- 218
19
-------
c
There were a couple slight errors the brochure when SHA printed
the brochure. Andy Parker has gone back and re-evaluated those
numbers and now the numbers on this chart are still approximate, but
they are a lot closer than what we had in the brochure in a couple of
areas.
QUESTION/COMMENT.
"• MR. GREG GOLDEN. DNB;
Well the old one I see the wetland impacts for 3N and 4N were
pretty close and now there is quite a difference.
RESPONSE:
MRLEECARRIGAN. SHA-
What happened on 4N as explained to me this morning, when they
added up the wetland impacts on alternate 4N that as seen in the
brochure or the one that was sent to the agencies in the package, they
calculated all the wetlands, but forgot to include some wetlands.
QUESTION/COMMENT
MR. ANDY PARKER
Explained that he ended up following the 3N alternate through
there instead of calculating the impacts for the relocation, we added in
the impacts along the existing. So that reflects the error and that brings it
back closer, but below what we were planning for the complete relocation
alternatives in the brochure, they were up around 30 to 35 acres and we
are a little bit below that now.
QUESTION/COMMENT;
MS. MICHFTJK GOMEZ. USACE-
I didn't get a copy of this handout, the one that was sent.
VI- 219
20
-------
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR T.FFCARRIGAN. SHA:
It was passed it around.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS
-T-H GOMEZ. USAGE:
copy.
Not this one, but the alignment one.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR |.PF.r:ARRIGAN. SHA:
Stated it should have been mailed to you. Stated we will get you a
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. BETH COLE. MHT"
Now that you retained the alternates, what is the schedule for
completing the Phase I archeological survey and the reason I'm asking is
as SHA mentioned in in this part of the state is an area that there have
been discoveries of Native American burials, so as soon as SHA could get
that Phase I survey complete, it would be really important information to
get.
RESPONSE-
MR. LEECARRIGAN. SHA:
SHA will work on that soon, with the alternates that were shown on
the map.' SHA is doing some profile and cross section work so that there
can be exact limits.
OTIFSTIQN/COMMENT:
VI-220 21
-------
MS. BETH HANNOLD MHT-
Stated that Kim Williams of this office is handing this but I do have
two questions or comments. Asked that when SHA was talking about the
impacts to historic structures and the totals that are given in the chart, you
are speaking of direct impacts where you would be taking from historic
properties and that you haven't gotten to the point where you are
assessing possibly less direct impacts such as visual impacts, is that
correct?
QUESTIQN/CQMMFTvJT;
MS.LORRATNFgTROW
Stated yes, that is correct.
MS. BETH HANNOLD. MHT-
Stated possibly in areas like Old St. Martin's. I don't quite
understand always SHA's reasoning for the relocation rather than
widening. Certainly in those areas where there is properties on both
sides, but why for instance in an area where it appears that there are only
things on the one side of the road, hn not certain that from a historic
standing structures point of view and certainly archeology that it is more
positive to put a whole new road adjacent to an existing road leaving the
existing road I believe rather than widening or putting aU your widening to
QUESTTOM/nnMMKNT
MR. LEROYH^RRIGAN SHA-
Stated the one reason is what SHA came across with this particular
alternate; we would have had to tie in here, it would have been a little
sharper curve, but we felt just to get the whole roadway away from the
historic site right here away from
QUESTION/COMMENT-
VI- 221
22
-------
we ore trying to get a little further from the church and it still would be
pretty flat.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. BETH HANNOLD. MHT:
Stated that SHA would also have two roads where there was one.
If SHA's doing that solely for a historic structure standpoint, you might
want to think about it really carefully.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR T FF. CARRIGAN. SHA:
Stated that one was the additional impact right here of this house
plus a few other homes. SHA just thought the geometries worked out
better.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. BILL SCHULTZ. USFW:
Stated no comments at this time.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. JOHN NICHOLS. NMFS:
Stated that he hasn't had a chance to look at this. He would
recommend options that are going to minimize impacts in the streams.
He likes Greg Golden's idea of possibly combining alternatives to
minimize impacts.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR VANCEHQBBS^SHA:
Stated he defers to Michelle Gomez who is the project manager.
VI- 222
24
-------
e
MS. BETH HAMNOT piffle
Replied it would certainly depend on a lot of details like how big is
that island or buffer or whatever there. You might still be impacting the
church with your relocated roadway.
RESPONSE-
MR. LEROYHARRIGAN. SHA-
What SHA is trying to do is be far enough down here before we
start to swing back up to be away from the church so we thought to come
down a little more to the east would be beneficial.
QUESTION/COMMENT-
MS. BETH HANNOLD. MHT-
And what would the space be between the existing roadway and
the proposed relocated?
RESPONSE:
MR.LEECARRIGAN. SHA-
Replied about 100 feet.
QUESTION/COMMFWf:
MS. CYNTHTA SIMPSON. SKA-
Asked Beth.if she is saying that just because there is not a direct
impact that even though Sha is relocating there still could be....effects to
historic site.
SHA-
Stated that the terrain out there is basically flat as you all know, so
VI-223 23
-------
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. MTnHFT.T.F GOMEZ. USAGE:
I guess I would echo that SHA should look at combining different
alternates.
RESPONSE:
MR TKFCARRIGAN. SHA:
Stated that SHA can look at that. For example if the alignment was
on relocation in one area, once we tie it back in instead of necessarily
bypassing the town of Showell to the east, we could go on the existing
road area there, but there is a fair amount of relocations associated with
this and that is why we bypass ShaL.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. BILL SCHULTZ. USFW:
Stated he can summarize the environmental impacts, the existing
location would be more beneficial in terms of minimizing the impacts as
opposed to relocation and a whole new crossing just as a summary.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
JE GOMEZ. USAGE:
Asked if with the alternates that are studied, are you looking at
improving the existing road by widening?
RESPONSE:
.F HARRIGAN. SHA:
Responded no. There will be the no build option which wouldn't do
anything except a little routine maintenance. Then we have the TSM
alternates that I described which would do some striping some markings,
maybe no passing signs and intersection improvements, SHA could
VI- 224
25
-------
enhance the easting roadway with some TSM improvements, so that
still in sight and that was retained.
is
MS.MICHFF.T.FGOUF7
And in your study I had asked that you study what you have done
already as far as safety improvements. Will SHA be doing that?
Rephedyes. Alotof the safety improvements when we talked to
you last on that issue, a lot of them were only in for 5 and 6 and 7 months
so as another couple of months go by, they will have been in place a year
and maybe a year and a half or so, so SHA definitely wants to do that
study before we ever get to our public hearing.
These alignments cross the railroad track a number of times and
you haven t mentioned any significant changes in how they would cross
Are there safety issues at these crossings and would there be structures
involved f
RESPONSE;
MRT-RRnfiRRpfiN CHA.
Well anytime there is a railroad crossing there could be some
St?nSTS' ?71 ** **t0 d° S0methin9 here at the railroad crossing
at the north end of the project and take the curve out of the road We are
looking into things as far as our TSM improvements as far as gates or
tor^g signals or something moreso than what exists there today, so we
are looking at those railroad crossings under the TSM improvements
\,.
VI- 225
26
-------
MS. CHRISTINE WELLS. MOP-
But they core now and would continue to be at grade crossings?
RESPONSE:
MR.LEECARRTGAN. SHA:
Yes. If we....US 113 then we would continue the at grade crossings.
QUESTION/COMMENT!
MR. ANDY PARKER. RK &: K:
Currently we have talked to the railroad and they run anywhere
from an average of 3 to 5 trains a week on the tracks. It is on an as
needed basis, the length of the train varies, so the traffic is not so great
that it is a major issue. The biggest safety problem associated wiih them
is actually the cars crossing the tracks and the way the road curves going
over the tracks currently.
It is not so much a car versus train issue. SHA is looking at options
like gates, but it is not a major pressing issue to separate the cars from
the trains.
Project No. SO377B11
MD363: Halls Curve Road to
St. Stephen in Somerset County
Status: Project Update
Project Manager: Mark Radloff x8507
Environmental Manager: Sharon Alderton x8565
VI- 226
27
-------
MARK-pftni OFF. «HA:
SHA lost met with the agencies in May. SHA went to a public
hearing on July 30. At that meeting, SHA presented the project to
approximately 40 people, and they were all in favor of these
improvements.
All of the accident rates are high including rear ends and side
swipes. In the area between St. Stephens west and east of the project has
been upgaded to add shoulders. SHA found that in the area with the
upgraded conditions, the accident rates are less.
Subsequent to that SHA did have some concerned citizens and
elected officials that requested that SHA look at containing the shoulder
area through the Monie Bay/St. Stephens area. It was requested that SHA
does not include this area because of the environmental impacts to the
Monie Bay area.
SHA recently received CE approval for this project. What SHA did '
was look for safety and operational improvements such as hazards like
wedging of pavement and things like that. The original section that SHA
proposed from Halls Curve to east of Oriole Back Road consisted of 12
foot lanes and 8 foot shoulders, six of which was paved. There are rumble
strips in place, but by the time you hit the rumble strip you are in the ditch.
The 4 foot area would provide an access for pedestrians and
bicycles. Thus, SHA cut the typical section down through this area to
where it comes into the improved section which was done in the 80's.
With the original limits, SHA had approximately 3 acres of wetland
impacts, approximately 10 1/2 acres of floodpkrin impacts and
approximately 4 acres of impacts to Chesapeake Bay critical area.
With the additional section, SHA came up with additional impacts.
They would include approximately less than one acre more of wetland
impacts, approxiniately 7 acres of Chesapeake Bay Critical Area impacts
and approximately 2 1/2 acres of floodplcrin impacts.
VI- 227
28
-------
MARYLAND STATE
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
INTERAGENCY REVIEW MEETING
February 19, 1997
State Highway Administration
211 E. Madison Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
VI- 228
-------
/ -i ^ -ILL
1 : •• . 4/c
/ ' L
I would like to clarify though that we would like to get any
comments that you have on this purpose and need within 2 weeks of
today, so we can address them before the next presentation and, if you
have any additional comments, we can discuss them next month. After
that we will formally send out the request for concurrence on the package
and will be expecting your concurrence or response within 14 days.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. DANIET.TE AT.QA7I. EPA:
And that's how I understood the process. Unfortunately, it is
unrealistic for me to pepare comments in 2 weeks, I can tell you that right
now.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR attEO GOLDEN. DNR:
There is Hughesville Pond which DNR owns and I'm not sure if you
have that information yet. I don't have a map.
RESPONSE:
MR DARRFLL SACKS. SHA:
Stated that is outside of our study area.
QT JETTON/COMMENT:
MR. GREG GOLDEN. DNR:
Thank you.
VI- 229
39
-------
Project No. WO720B11
U.S. 113: MD 394 South of
Snow HiH to Delaware State Line in
Worcester County
Status: Project Schedule and Political Concerns
Project Manager: Sueseela Rajan x 8514
Environmental Manager: Lorraine Straw x 8527
MS. SUE RAIAN. SHA:
The main issues that we want to talk about today are the concerns
and issues relating to the project, then details on the alternates.
What I want to bring to your attention is that safety is a major
concern with this project. Recently there have been a couple of fatal
accidents that have made the local elected officials, the community, and
the organization concerned. They have approached the Governor to
expedite the project.
So, I am circulating a schedule. Our administrator has made a
commitment to the Governor that we meet this schedule. Right now, we
are still waiting for comments and concurrence from some of the
agencies. I'm also going to go over the comments and our draft
responses to the comments. We will be handing that out also.
I wanted to run over what these problem areas are. There have
been several accidents in the project area, (this is based on data from
1980). Recently, in 1996, there were two fatal collisions in which 3 people
lost their lives.
Since then, the last accident was the day after Christmas: one fatal
collision occurred in the southern section; and one in the northern section;
40
VI- 230
-------
C
just south, of Jorvis Road. This one involved a left turn at that intersection.
The car was rear ended and put in the path of a tractor trailer. The other
accident involved a car skidding on the ice and resulted in a head-on
collision, with one fatality.
The local community is very concerned about the safety of the
roadway aid they have been asking us to do something. As you know,
this study actually started in the 1970's. At that time an alternate was
selected and got approval. Since then, the project was shelved. In the
late 80's another study was done and that was also stopped. At that time,
the study was shelved because of the environmental constraints and
budget constraints associated with it.
That study identified several safety improvements along this road.
Some of them have already been implemented, others are under design
and construction, and some are being programmed.
Now let me go over the concerns that you have and how we are
going to respond to them. In your package, we included all the comments
that came in, as well as a draft response. A couple of the responses have
already gone out. The only concurrences that SHA received were from
U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Department of Natural Resources. The other
agencies sent comments. Most of the comments I summarized into a
package here and I wanted to hand that out also.
One major concern of the agencies was wetland impacts. There
are a lot of wetlands in the study area and since the jurisdictional
determination was done, and the alternatives were presented to you for
concurrence, there was a concern that, since then, the wetland acreage
may have increased.
We were also asked to quantify that and include it in the document.
We have completed most of the wetland determinations although I think I
was informed by Michelle from Corps of Engineers that there are a couple
of areas we still have to look at, including agricultural ditches and an
area near MD 90. There will be a slight difference in the wetland
numbers in the document.
VI- 231
41
-------
f.
We hove prepared a preliminary draft document that we will be
giving to cooperating agencies and state permitting agencies to review.
Use that document for reviewing alternatives packages and give us
concurrence.
In that document, we have included....wetland impacts. There will
be a slight difference when we include the additional wetland areas,
which will be included in the next version of the draft document.
*• Another issue involves historical and archeological issues where
they were completed. Since that time when the alternates were
presented, we have completed a Phase I archeological survey and
identified historical resources in the area. Seven historical sites were
identified to be either eligible or on the National Register of Historic
Places. Lorraine will point them out.
MS. LORRAINE STROW. SHA
Vicks County Store is National Register eligible, this is on the east
side of US 113. The Hale Mariner Farm is also on the east side. Old St.
Martin's Church is on the National Register, that is on the west side. We
have the Lumeal Shall House here on the west side and on the east side,
the Shall Store, both of those are eligible for the National Register. Then
at the far north end, outside the study area is the Maryland/Delaware
state line marker. In our area of potential effect is the Transpententular
line Marker which is eligible for the National Register.
MS. SUE RATAN. SHA:
These historic sites and associated information will be included in
that preliminary document.
QUESTION/COKfMENT:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
Stated she needs to note for MHT that Berlin is not in the area of
42
VI- 232
-------
potential effect. There are historic resources located in the Berlin area.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. SUE RATAN. SHA:
Okay. The next question that we got from EPA was, will the
southern and northern sections be evaluated separately? As you see
here, the southern section, as Cynthia pointed out, exits from MD 394 to
Hayes Landing Road and just north of US 15 Deer Park Road to Delaware
Road in the northern segment. The way we are now listing all of this in the
document for the southern section, we are considering the no build, TSM,
and also a dualization along the existing road alignment.
For the north we have the no build, TSM, and also 3S, that is....3N
which is dualizing along the existing road. We also have 4N modified,
some portion of that will be on relocation which was presented to you
earlier.
Since then, we have also added a combination alignment in the
northern section. That is also to address some of the comments. What
that will do is, along the existing road, 4N modified would run along the
relocation alignment and then it would join the existing road alignment
and run on the west side. In this area, it will have a slight relocation
where there was a major wetland impact.
4N modified and relocation joins the existing alignment and then it
runs on the east side. From there, it shares the same alignment as 3N. In
the north end, it runs on the west side of the existing road where there
were major wetland impacts in that area.
What we are doing with the combination alignment is using the 4N
portions of 4N and 3N combined - it will have the same alignment as 4N
modified as we presented earlier. From just north of Shingle Landing
Road, it will join the 3N alignment all the way to the Delaware state line.
Other comments that we received from the agencies included the
43
VI- 233
-------
request to consider the TSM alternate. This is because the package that
went out did not have a good description of the TSM alternate.
Now in the document, we have included a detailed description of
the TSM alternate, what improvements will be included, what has been
implemented, and what has been programmed and why.
We have been requested to evaluate the TSM based on what
improvements have been done. Also, under the TSM proposed, we
should do an analysis to see how safety and traffic conditions along the
road win improve. That is being partly addressed in the document, and
we are doing a detailed accident analysis.
The agencies' next concern was our reasons for dropping portions
of alternate 4N. When we modified alternate 4N, we dropped portions of
alternate 4N and incorporated option A and option B. Both of them
were found to be more advantageous than alternate 4N mainly because
both avoid wetland impacts. Also in the Shingle landing Road area,
there is a new development coming and the other alternative would have
gone through that area.
What we did was when we modified, we brought the alignment
much closer to the existing roadway. Alternate 4 would have been further
up, having more environmental impacts. That is also addressed in the
document.
We had talked about the combination alternates. The impacts are
quantified separately so you will be able to look at combining the various
'alternate from south and north, that has also been addressed.
I think I covered most of the items. You have the schedule that we
just distributed. K you can look through that schedule, I just wanted to go
over that briefly.
The schedule was prepared last week to make sure that we meet
the schedule for the location design public hearing. According to the
VI- 234
44
-------
schedule, we actually need concurrence today, but since we are going to
give you the preliminary draft document today, we are requesting you
review the detail alternate portion of the document and then give us your
concurrence.
We are also scheduling a meeting with you to review your
comments sometime in mid-March. I would like to schedule that also.
After I take the questions and all, we'll go over all that.
Federal Highway has to approve the document by 4/10 in order for
us to complete the documents in time for public review 30 days prior to the
hearing. Does anybody have any questions?
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. TOEKRESST.FTN SHA;
Asked will you be submitting...responses to all the outstanding
comments on alternates retained for detailed study by the end of the
month? As Sue said, we have requested the Corps, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and EPA be cooperating agencies.
Id also like to ask anyone else, any other agencies whether they
would like the opportunity to review and comment on the preliminary draft
document at this time.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. GREG GOLDEN. DNR:
Larry Hughes is on this project. Having that or any other questions,
I should deliver it to him and.I can do that.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MRTQEKRESSLEM. SHA:
VI- 235
45
-------
Ask him to get in touch with us if he would like to review the
document.
QT reSTTON/OOMMENT:
MR. GREG GOLDEN. DNR:
Asked should he coll you?
RESPONSE:
MR. TOEKRESSLEIN. SHA:
Responded yes.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. GHRIS WELLS. MOP:
\
Asked is this packet here that we have been handed, ...the pre
RESPONSE:
MRTQEKRESSIHN.SHA:
Responded no. We will be passing out the pre DEIS at the end of
the presentation here.
OTTKSTTON/COMMENT:
MS. DANTETTfi ^TjGAZI. EPA:
You said formal comments will be received by the end of the
month. Responding to our comments, the alternates retained, this will
come out after the pre draft that we get today? I thought they were going
DHS?
46
VI- 236
-------
to go together.
RESPONSE:
MR. TOEKRESSFTN
Stated the pre-draft should address the majority of the comments
that we went over today. We gave you draft versions of the letters, we just
haven't formalized them and sent them out. So essentially that is the
information that will be provided in the formalized letters, which will be
sent out by the end of the month.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. BETH COLE. MHT:
The archeological survey was completed and I understand that is
coming at the end of the month. At this point, do you know how many sites
were found out there and how many they are recommending for Phase n
work?
RESPONSE:
MS. LORRAINE STROW. SHA
Stated yes. Eighty one sites were found. Phase I archeological
survey discovered all the high probability areas as well as twenty
one....low probability areas. It identified 28 potentiaL.archeological sites,
one of which is eligible for the National Register.
Based on the results of the Phase I survey, all potential and
significant archeological resources that might be impacted by the
project....considered for new information....
At this stage of work there is no evidence to suggest that any of the
sites marked ..... although confirmation must be .....
47
VI- 237
-------
QUESTION/COMMENT:
So they found 81 sites recommended for
RESPONSE:
MS. LORRAINE STROW. SHA:
«.
Responded that is what fan getting.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. BETH COLE. MHT:
And I know we just got the packet. We havent had a chance to
review it yet. I think there still seems to be a little bit of discrepancy in the
numbers we keep hearing in terms of eligible structures, 7 versus 10. I
guess once they have had a chance to look at that, we can....
RESPONSE:
MS. LORRAINE STROW. SHA:
As for the 7 versus 10, the three additional sites were in the Berlin
area, the area that....
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. JOHN NICHOLS. NMFS
Stated the draft document has been sent out
RESPONSE:
MR. TOE KRESSLEIN. SHA:
VI- 238
48
V
-------
Stated a preliminary draft is going to be circulated to the
cooperating agencies and also to the additional agencies that would like
to review that and comment on it. If you don't indicate that you want to
review the preliminary version, you will still be sent a finalized version of
the draft document.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. TQHN NICHOLS. NMFS:
So we have yet to concur on the alternatives. Are we waiting for the
final of this document to come through?
RESPONSE
MR. TOE KRESSLE3N. SHA:
c
Actually, I think we did send the letter to National Marine Fisheries,
didn't we? Yes. We will give you a copy today if you would like to review
the document.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. SUE RATAN. SHA:
When you review the preliminary document or the information
packet, if you have any questions, please feel free to call us so we can get
the concurrence earlier if you have any questions or anything.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR.MARKDUVAT
Stated at this time we'll hand out the preliminary document.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
49
VI- 239
-------
MS. SUE RATAN. SHA: :
Stated we care going to schedule a meeting next month to go over
the preliminary draft document. Once we get the comments, we have to
revise the document....
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. RENEE SIGEL FHWA:
A.
Stated that is not sufficient time to review it. She is asking for....the
10th....techniccdly we still can get 45 days, you are trying to shorten it to
less than stated Sue will not get comments from them if the meeting is
the week of the 10th.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. LORRAINE STROW. SHA:
Sue, you had a....the 18th.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
Why dont you tell her what projects are on there.
RESPONSE:
MP. MART DT1VALL. SHA:
Let me see if Ne got them here.
• QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. RENEE SIGEL FHWA:
50
VI- 240
-------
Stated they will do their best.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. SUE RATAN. SHA:
Asked can we do it on the 17th?
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS DAMTET.T.FIALGAZI. EPA:
Asked why can't we do it on the 19th?
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MRMARKDUVALLSHA:
The 19th weVe got tentatively 3 or 4 projects and I'm sure there are
others that we are going to add to this list to present on March 19.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. DANIEJ.T.E AT.aA7T, EPA-
Asked isn't this the priority? This is what Pm not understanding.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MRMARKDUVALLSHA:
Right now we've got Hughesville that we just handed out today,
weVe got a US 1 Bel Air Bypass and I think that's on there for some reason
and IVe got a Maryland Aviation project that they wanted to present today
and got bumped to March 19. I'm sure there are 2 or 3 others that will go
on the schedule.
VI- 241
51
-------
RESPONSE:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
Well it sounds like we could do those projects until 10 and then
from 10 on we could do this. The only concern I have is US 301.
OTTF.STION/COMMENT:
- MS. GAY OLSEN. SHA:
Can we start the interagency meeting earlier than 9:30 so we can
have a little bit more time.
RESPONSE:
MS CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
EPA isn't here.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS DANTFT.TKAT.GA2I. EPA:
I could be here by 9 if that gives you more time and then we could
do 1 /2 hour lunch. The only other option for EPA is if you want to do it on
the 18th so that it can back to back, HI just have to stay over night.
OUESTION/COMMEMi
MS. CYNTHIA STMPSON. SHA:
So you have two options on the table, the 18th and the 19th?
RESPONSE:
52
VI- 242
-------
MS. RENEE SIGEL FHWA:
Asked isn't the 18th the managers meeting?
QT TESTION/COMMENT:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
Asked is there anyone here who is attending that?
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. VANCE HOBBS. COE:
It is the manager's meeting, the monthly managers meeting that
has been scheduled to address issues.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
I don't know who would be coming from EPA anymore. You have
two options on the table, let's just agree on one. If you can't make it the
18th, then say that. The 19th we are proposing to start the interagency at
9 and then the discussion on 1 13 would start at 10.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS.SUERAJAN.SHA:
Asked how many of you would like the 1 8th?
QUESTION/COMMENT:
T.T.S. MOP:
I'm not even sure if this involves me, I don't think it does.
53
VI- 243
-------
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. SUERATAN. SHA:
Now you ore okay with the 18th?
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. CHRIS WRT.T.S MOP-
».
No, I don't know if you are just talking to a few of the agencies or all
the agencies?
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. DANIELLE ALGAZI EPA:
Well why cant this be the first thing, at 9 o'clock and then start
everything else later? Last would be tough for me because I need to leave
by 2:30.
OUESTION/COMMENT-
>. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
I think you need a minimum of 2 hours to review that.
OUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. SUE RATAN. SHA:
Nine to eleven.
OUETION/COMMENT:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
54
VI- 244
-------
Does everybody agree wit that?
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. SUE RATAN. SHA:
Does anybody have a problem with the 19th from 9 to 11 ?
RESPONSE:
Pretty much everybody prefers the 19th.
QT TESTIQN/COMMENT:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
So any interagency discussions will begin at 1 1 .
01 IESTION/COMMENT:
I will tell Larry Hughes, I don't know if he can make it, but that
seems like a reasonable approach.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
Asked since you are not responding to our comments on the
alternatives retained for further study until the end of the month. Who
one or several or all of the agencies agree that another alternate sho|
be included in this?
RESPONSE:
VI- 245
55
-------
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
That's a risk we-take.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
us urrrHET I F. GOMEZ. COR-
And that's a risk that you are willing to accept, that that is going to
detain it further?
RESPONSE:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
I don't know that it will. I mean are you telling me that it will?
QUESTION/COMMENT: •
I guess we had hoped that those type of comments we would have
received from you already on the alternates retained for detailed study
package that was sent out and we did receive some comments that we
should consider a combined alternate or TSM alternate and we have
included that information in there.
RESPONSE-
MS
COS
But if for some reason the combined alternate or the more detailed
TSM is not applicable, we feel that you should do something else.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MRTTMWYNN. SHA:
VI- 246
56
-------
That is the chance we take when we go to a public hearing the
a result of the public hearing there is going to be either a modificatior
alternatives or additional alternatives we have to look at.
I think that there is a possibility that we would address any
additional alternatives or combinations of alternatives and modificatid
between the draft document and the final document. There will still bq
opportunity to incorporate any changes and modifications to the proj«
between the draft document and the final document.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR.TOEKRKSST.ETN SHA-
If you were to have any of those type of comments, I would just ;
that you would give us an informal call and let us know as far in advc
as possible so that we can possibly be prepared to address that at the
meeting on the 19th.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
S DANTFT.T.F: ALGAZI. EPA:
The consequences ore basically that you would just revise the <
EIS before it comes out and not put out another pre draft. Is that corre
RESPONSE:
MR. TOE KRESSLEIN. SHA:
Well, we would have to see what the extent of the comments are
is hard to say at this time.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. DANIELLE ALGAZI. EPA:
VI- 247
57
-------
RESPONSE:
MS nANjTET IF. ALGAZI. EPA:
You're saying that the public will be there?
QTTESTTON/CQMMENT:
MS. CYNTHIA STMPSQN. SHA:
I know they will.
Project No.
Metro Access for Metro Green Line
Outer Branch Avenue Segment
Status: Pre Purpose and Need
Presented by: Monte Rahman
MR. MONTE RAHMAN. SHA:
This particular project is not on the agenda and we are trying to
squeeze it in these last few minutes, so please allow us.
This is the first time we are presenting this project for your
consideration and initial review of the purpose and need statement. A
representative of the planning team will be making a formal presentation
at next months' interagency reviewjneeting.
59
VI- 249
-------
So you ore going to be flexible on that, is that what you are saying?
RESPONSE:
MR. TOEKRESSLEIN. SEA:
I think we're going to have to be, in light of the prospect of possible
additional comments that we don't know the extent of at this time.
„ QUES-nON/CQMMENT:
MS. DANIET.T.F ATAA7T, FPA-
I guess jumping ahead since the public hearing is going to be the
week of the 26th just to let you know, that is the week of, not that it effects
me, but the week of Memorial weekend and a lot of people go on vacation
and you wouldn't want people who would like to be at the public hearing
and not be able to make it because of that.
RESPONSE:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
They will be there.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. SUE RATAN. SHA:
We are looking for May 29, there is a problem with getting the
schools.
QUETION/COMMENT;
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SH&
The point is there wont be a problem in attendance.
58
VI- 248
-------
The Washington Metropolitan Area transit authority is constructing
the planned extension of the Metro Green line F route service in the
vicinity of MD 5, Branch Avenue and the Capital Beltway to be open to
service in the year 2001.
The purpose of this study is to examine the existing access and
investigate the possibility of improving vehicular access through the
proposed Metro station. Efficient vehicular and pedestrian access to
transit stations is necessary to maximize ridership.
Traffic data illustrate that the expected growth in traffic win result in
the deterioration of traffic operations along the surrounding intersections
with MD 5. In addition, upgrading access to the Branch Avenue Metro
station is recommended in the 1981 Prince Georges County sub region 7
master plan.
The master plan identifies that this Metro station is a major
contributing factor for significant traffic volumes in the area. Access to
and from the proposed Branch Avenue Metro station is a major issue for
residents and businesses in the study area.
County and elected officials and area residents have repeatedly
expressed concerns about traffic safety. Our traffic analysis for the
intersection in the vicinity of the Metro station indicate that 3 out of 4
intersections will operate at level of service F during at least one peak
hour when the Metro station will open which is the year 2001.
In the year 2020, traffic analysis also showed that the traffic will
operate at level of service F, at least in one of the peak directions.
Therefore, a project planning study is required to evaluate access
improvements along the major highway facilities in this area.
Please review the purpose and need document in preparation for a
formal presentation during next months interagency review meeting.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
VI- 250
60
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
Davidl
Secrets
Parked
Adminil
MORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
R. Suseela Rajan
Project Manager
March 25,1997
US 113 Interagency Meeting
On March 19 a meeting was held with SHA and agencies involved with the development of |
US 113 project from South of Snow Hill to the Delaware State Line. The purpose of the mej
was to review agencies' comments on the Pre-Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Pre-
DEIS). Those in attendance were:
Danielle Algazi
Ernie Disney
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
John Forren
Elder Ghigiarelli
Michele Gomez
Larry Green
Phil Hagar
Larry Hughes
Mary Huie
Kelly Hutchinson
Gary Jellick
Al Kampmeyer
Joseph Kresslein
Steve Kouroupis
Steve Linhart
Todd Nichols
Andy Parker
Bill Schultz
Rob Shreeve
Renee Sigel
Cynthia Simpson
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Rummel Klepper and Kahl (RK&K)
State Highway Administration (SHA)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
Dannielle Consultants
Worcester County Department of Planning
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Coastal Resources Inc.
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
State Highway Administration (SHA)
State Highway Administration (SHA)
KCI Technologies
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
A.D. Marble and Associates
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
State Highway Administration (SHA)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
State Highway Administration (SHA)
VI- 251
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
r. Louis H Ege, Jr.
ige Two
Lorraine Strow
David Sutherland
David Wallace
Christine Wells
Jim Wynn
John Zanetti
Lisa Zeimer
State Highway Administration (SHA)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Rummel Klepper and Kahl (RK&K)
Maryland Office of Planning (MOP)
State Highway Administration (SHA)
State Highway Administration (SHA)
Rummel Klepper and Kahl (RK&K)
>ecial note: As a result of a number of long discussions at this meeting, the agencies and SHA
veloped an alternatives package that both could agree upon. The agencies seemed close to
ncurring on these alternatives retained for detailed study, but felt it was prudent to see a
scription of the alternatives in writing before giving concurrence. A package describing the
ematives was faxed to the agencies on March 21 for review in preparation for a subsequent
:eting on March 25. The US 113 Description of Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study is a
ult of this meeting and is attached with these minutes.
ork Progress on the Pre-DEIS
e meeting began with an explanation of the events that have gone into developing this project.
The concurring agencies were given a Pre-Draft Environmental impact Statement (Pre-DEIS)
on February 19.
Revisions to Chapter 2 were sent to the agencies on March 7.
At the beginning of the meeting a revised Summary table (Table S-l) from the document was
given to the agencies. This table was revised to show the addition of two new alternatives as
requested during the conference call with the agencies on March 3.
ncurrence on the Alternates Retained for Detailed Study has not been received from the
vironmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Corps of Engineers (COE), and the United States
arine Fisheries (USMF).
ernative '2S & 2N - Basic TSM alternative
A more comprehensive design for this alternative was developed and presented by Mr. Larry
Green
Agencies seemed to show the most concern with small areas of additional right-of-way that
may be needed especially at intersections where bypass lanes are proposed.
response to a suggestion by Ms. Michelle Gomez, SHA agreed to add rumble slots in the
julder just outside the travel lane to this alternative as a safety measure for fixed-object
lisions. :
VI- 252
-------
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Page Three
Alternative 2S&2N (6'Median)
• This alternative was developed in response to agency comments during a previous me
(March 3 conference call).
• FHWA and SHA felt that this was not a feasible alternative and should be dropped.
• This alternative with a 6 foot median and traffic barrier hi the center will no longer be
included in this study.
Discussion of lowering the speed limits on US 113
• Phil Hagar from Worcester County Planning expressed the county's opposition to lowJ
the speed of the roadway for any reason.
• It was recognized that even if the posted speed limit were lowered, many drivers woulJ
through the area at the same high rate of speed that pervades today.
• The functional classification of the roadway must be taken into account when selecting
alternative. The functional classification of this roadway is intermediate arterial on the
classification system and a principal arterial on the federal classification system.
• In conclusion, a lower posted speed is inconsistent with adjacent roadway sections anc
function of the highway and therefore is not an option.
Safety Considerations for the Alternatives
Mr. David Wallace, a licensed Professional Engineer, noted a number of engineering and
considerations throughout the meeting that must be considered in the development of the
alternatives.
• Passing lanes must be at least 1 to 1.5 miles in length in order to function effectively
safely.
• A 34 foot median or 20 foot median with barrier in the center would be acceptable alor
roadway with a 60 mph design speed.
• A design speed of 60 mph is generally applicable for this corridor using either 20 feet i
safety grading or guardrail at the sides of the travel lanes.
• Areas where safety has been a known problem will have to be looked at more carefully
wider margin of safety may be incorporated into the design. I
• SHA will have to look at drivers' expectations when considering the cross-section of thl
roadway.
Access to US 113 Under Each Alternative
• If Alternative 4N is selected, the current road would be converted to a service road wit
access to US 113 at a limited number of access points. These access points would be
existing county roadways.
C
VI- 253
-------
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Page Four
• The service roads for US 113 Alternative 4N would have a lower speed limit, would act as a
local road, and would carry a significantly lower volume of traffic.
• No driveways or minor service roads would be given access to US 113 under Alternative 4N.
Any property that would be denied access with Alternative 4N would be purchased by SHA.
• Current access points along the existing alignment will be consolidated where applicable to
limit the number of minor access points.
• Minor access points will have access only as right-in and right-out only under Alternative 3S
and 3N.
Comments on the Pre-DEIS
The agencies' comments were reviewed and discussed. EPA and FHWA submitted written
comments and these were reviewed so other agencies could be a hear the comments.
EPA mentioned that since many of the interim improvements mentioned in the document have
not been in place for more than three years, there are no statistics to prove that these
improvements resulted in increased safety.
EPA suggests adding a discussion of indirect impacts:
• Ms. Danielle Algazi said that the Environmental Consequences Chapter should include
discussion of indirect or secondary impacts.
• A discussion of the effects this project may have on county growth and land use patterns and
the project's consistency with local master plans will be added.
• Some felt that roadway improvements may be a catalyst for local growth while others argued
that growth will occur regardless of infrastructure. Meeting participants made strong cases
for both sides. SHA agreed to present both viewpoints hi the DEIS.
FHWA presented a number of their comments on the Pre-DEIS:
• It is not necessarily true that emergency access time would be increased with a median
barrier. This statement will be removed.
• Also untrue is the statement that businesses would not be impacted by the barrier separation.
This statement will be modified to read that the barrier cpuld have an effect on access to
some local businesses from traffic on the opposite side of the road.
• On Section 4(f) FHWA asked for more information on impacts, more discussion on
Avoidance and Mmimization, and a discussion of proposed mitigation sites.
• No consultation and coordination section is included in the Section 4(f).
Additional Comments on the Pre-DEIS
• MDE concurred on the Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study and agreed to have
comments on the DEIS submitted by the middle of next week.
VI- 254
-------
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Page Five
• All other agencies agreed to have their comments ready by March 26.
• John Nichols (NMFS) agreed to submit comments on the DEIS by March 27.
Alternatives Retained
The many issues raised at this meeting resulted in the development of some alternatives to be
retained for detailed study. SHA is looking at a number of alternatives as described in the
attached package. At this meeting the agencies agreed that SHA will not consider a two-lane
cross-section north of Berlin because of the capacity problems, safety issues, and driver
expectations through this portion of the corridor.
The meeting participants generally agreed that these alternatives were acceptable The group
agreed, however that they would like to see a written description of these alternatives before
concurring to ensure that there are no differences in communication and that we are all agreeing
to the same alternatives package. This alternatives package, developed during this meeting and
written subsequent to the meeting, was faxed to the agencies on the afternoon of March 21st so
that it is available for review before the next meeting. The DEIS will include a table quantifying
the resources impacted by each alternative, engineering studies equal in detail to those previously
completed for Alternative 3S, 3N and 4N, and avoidance and minimization alternatives in
sensitive areas.
Future Meetings
^l861!?68 ag^eed t0 h°M an°ther meetmg on March 25 to discuss comments on the document
and the Alternatives Retained for detailed study.
These minutes are based on the interpretation of the writer. If you have any additional questions
or comments please call Mrs. Sue Rajan, Project Manager at (410) 545-85 14 or Ms. Catherine
Maher, Project Engineer at (410) 545-8544.
Ms. Cfatherme'MaKer
Project Engineer
Project Planning Division
cc: Attendees
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen
VI- 255
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
R. Suseela Rajan
Project Manager
April 11, 1997
US 113 Interagency Meeting on March 25
On March 25 a meeting was held with SHA and agencies involved with the development of the US 113
project from South of Snow Hill to the Delaware State Line. The purpose of the meeting was to review
agencies' comments on the Pre-Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Pre-DEIS). Those hi
attendance were:
Danielle Algazi
Ernie Disney
Michele Gomez
Larry Green
Mary Huie
Joseph Kresslein
Steve Linhart
Lorraine Strow
David Sutherland
David Wallace
John Zanetti
Lisa Zeimer
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Rummel Klepper and Kahl (RK&K)
Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
Dannielle Consultants
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
State Highway Administration (SHA)
KCI Technologies
State Highway Administration (SHA)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Rummel Klepper and Kahl (RK&K)
State Highway Administration (SHA)
Rummel Klepper and Kahl (RK&K)
Work Progress on the Pre-DEIS
The meeting began with an explanation of the events that have gone into developing this project.
• The concurring agencies were given a Pre-Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Pre-DEIS) on
February 19.
• Revisions to Chapter 2 were sent to the agencies on March 7.
• Agencies were given a revised alternative package for their review on March 21.
• SHA is working to incorporate these additional alternatives into the DEIS.
VI- 256
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
\f
-------
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Page Two
We were waiting concurrence on the Alternates Retained for Detailed Study from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Corps of Engineers (COE), and the United States Marine Fisheries
(USMF).
Comments on the DEIS
The agencies and SHA spent a number of hours going over comments and additions to the DEIS. The
agencies followed-up with written comments as well. All of these comments will be incorporated into
the document. A synopsis of some of the major comments from each agency is outlined below.
x
USMF - John Nichols
• Expressed concerns with water quality issues and how the median will be designed to accommodate
SWM.
• Wanted SHA to consider a 34' median; we told him that we will look at the 34' median as an
option in design. He is concurring with the 2S Alternative (20* median) with a grass median or a
crowned paved median. Concurrence was received on April 1.
• Objects to a curbed median or a jersey barrier that pools water on one side or the other.
COE - Michelle Gomez
• Suggested incorporating higher ratios for wetland replacement than that suggested in the Pre-DEIS
• Wetland classifications should be in accordance with the latest methods.
EPA - Dannielle Algazi
• SHA agreed to look at the feasibility of a reduced cross-section in the south with the development
of Alternative 2S (20' Median). We are studying ways to incorporate the existing roadway into the
design, studying a drainage plan and water quality issues, and looking at where to put passing lanes
to reduce impacts.
• For the dualization alternatives, we will quantify impacts based on 60 mph design speed except for
the 3N alternative that will look at both 50 and 60 mph design.
• EPA's comments mentioned the possibility of creating a two lane roadway in one direction along
existing alignment and creating two lanes in the other direction on the new alignment. EPA has
since given concurrence on Alts retained. The Alternatives considered section will contain an
explanation as to why this alternative would not be prudent.
MOP - Christine Wells
• Include a much stronger discussion of land use and how the proposed improvements will have
secondary or cumulative effects on the surrounding lands.
• Arguments as to whether the improvements will cause an increase in land use or whether increased
development is inevitably occurring in the region will both be presented in the DEIS since there are
strong arguments for both sides.
VI- 257
-------
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Page Three
FWS - David Sutherland
• SHA will work with him on the habitats discussion.
Access to US 113 Under Each Alternative
• If Alternative 4N is selected, the current road would be converted to a service road with access to
US 113 at a limited number of access points. These access points would be via existing county
roadways.
• The service roads for US 113 Alternative 4N would have a lower speed limit, would act as a local
road, and would carry a significantly lower volume of traffic.
• No driveways or minor service roads would be given access to US 113 under Alternative 4N. Any
property that would be denied access with Alternative 4N would be purchased by SHA.
• Current access points along the existing alignment will be consolidated where applicable to limit the
number of minor access points.
Minor access points will have access only as right-in and right-out only under Alternative 3S
Future Meetings
SHA is meeting with the agencies on April 28 to explain to the agencies how their Pre-DEIS comments
were addressed. At this meeting we will not be discussing new comments on the DEIS but only
explaining how the agencies' previous comments have been addressed.
These minutes are based on the interpretation of the writer. If you have any additional questions or
comments please call Mrs. Sue Rajan, Project Manager at (410) 545-8514 or Ms. Catherine Maher,
Project Engineer at (410) 545-8544.
by:
Ms. Catherine,
Project Engineer
Project Planning Division
cc: Attendees
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen
VI- 258
-------
. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BALTIMORE DISTRICT, .U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
i'iP.o! BOX 1715 '.
BALTIMORE, MD 21203-1715
REPtYTO
ATTENTION OF
; 3
Operations Division
Subject: US 113 Transportation Study
Request for Cooperation Agency
Ms. Susan J. Binder
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
The Rotunda, Suite 220
711 West 40th Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21211-2187
Dear Ms . Binder :
This is in response to your letter to Colonel Randall Inouye,
dated February 10, 1997, requesting the Baltimore District, US Army
Corps of Engineers to participate as a cooperating agency in the
preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the US 113
Corridor Study in Worcester County, Maryland.
The District will be pleased to serve as a cooperating agency
in the development of the document. The Draft Environmental Impact
Statement will need to be coordinated with this office to ensure
that sufficient information is included in the document so that it
may serve as Department of the Army Section 4 04 /Sect ion 10 permit
application. The release of the DEIS must be coordinated with this
office before being released to the public, a joint public notice
issued, and a joint public hearing conducted to meet our
requirements as a cooperating agency.
If you have any questions on this matter, please call me or
the Project Manager, Ms. Michele L. Gomez, at (410) 962-4343.
Sincerely,
,
Linda A. Morrison
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copy Furnished:
FHWA, Renee Sigel
V'MD SHA, Cynthia Simpson
EPA, Danielle Algazi
FWS, David Sutherland
VI- 259
-------
Other Agency Correspondence
US 113 Planning Study
-------
'I Piji-i iip-iij ii'll- 'I'll'i'j! I I '•nm*
jaVHll''4r>B1Bi*N:*«SiM«JnBS'l5rilLi' itTta iiiiii iiilW^^
i i^i^i^i£ i I iiiiii: i i^ ^M i |= i |i 4! i: ti \ i y 1 s
ii'lll'l IlllHi "I Ill I»i1|lll|llll Hi ill"! I i,,ill,l,i||,||iill,ill,,,ilii 1,1. Ll l»»||| II IIIU I l|»»li.ii» I I Ill lhi.1 .llig.ili.il!. |l| Iiiiii nil I
,
t
.ijjLi Miv
j ,1 ,
) if
1 i
"• * wi
»>*,
itik,
ill
^x i: m i m iii ^ mm s ^
I'll rl'll Illlllllll NIIIIIIUIlmliBiiiHiii
ESEis^ iii:
, I, Hi I; I, i,,1".'1
!T! i Hi
lit
, : K^ i£yz£32isiMSiLa^. i Mm^iizoaaas :::
tl !'" ?!" I I
• - m f :
i
:i : I !: ^
!;,; !l til, ,!,;,;; :;, L!!; iiii,;il!ii !!,„;,, n i i UiiiiJi La I; :!;,,:;;,;,;,,,! li.!:,!;;;!;,!!,!;,;!,,, III ill,,,,;! i,i! i:,!;!, ,11!!;:«,,,i!!!!;!;,;:,!!,,!!,;,;»!:;«,!;,!!!,! El;,,:, I s ,ii iiiiii i,iifi!!;i!i,,;!,;;,,;;;!,«,«;, liii ;i Ji „,!!,; I Hi a h\ i 1 i! .Ji!!, j i i,,i;,»!,!;;,:!': in ,;,!!, iiili,,,! ii,.,,,: ;,!,; s,,
iiStEStliSMiSi
iiii Jyi:
I*
if in iji'i: i r ii l:"v iii" i 'jflfwl ji1 ! Vrl1 I! in i if if ' I ii] ft I "f ? K1 i! i'lh 11 I iiii ii i I i ill Iiiiiii1 n1 iiT iii '
l!iitfpla^i i*;! lii:^ IM
:• iii-1! I -"=1 i! ill-' "i • --S : «m !.; !!«:'• • !-i!i It-iii - ::
i
i I
Ii
n imm m ? f
•i- liil'l-ii f
'I'll I1',,,"" '
f ..... >: 'I
"
; ......... "
yjam(i(^ii 1^1 i ^Hflll^jJJ(^qHfliji^|l,jBi
•mm mm ^K^^^^ :^^^^^^^^
• ii^ ttiSt i ii^^^^^^ Ii i iik, i W ii:tt^^^^^ I ii i^ i:ii 'ilfSfilf, W^ ii i & iiiiiiili ii::i i i:^ iii ;i
|" <:,: 'i': i! i 1.11 I lr 'i 11 . 1.'!', "!ii '.'' ''. Ill it ill!'-, l!li:"'i|l i X.fl r;.". ""I I ".' h ' ' ! i <. i' >;• , .
' | |!!l'il| ;|l! Wjf f|rWpT! « ! tj ti'!«'| T1FS, i" W?F?
i 1111114 K in i i^ i |^^ i iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii i n in A^ iiiiini i in 111^^
,,iiiiii,i i ii^^^^^^^^ iiiiii i i, Li i;! iiiii,i iiiiiii ^M^ i iii,i ISM
-------
vRYLAND
5TORICAL
'>•V J u
Wilfiam [Donald Schaefer
Gocemor
Jacqueline H. Rogers
Secretory. DHCD
RUST
JUJie 14, 1990
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
Re:
Contract No. W668-101-170
US 113 Relocated from North
of US 50 to Delaware State Line
Dear Mr. Ege:
Thank you for providing another map for the above referenced
significance for the properties in the project area. We
toe levels of significance proposed in your ^ugusr 31
flTr alTproperties except WO 284, the Lemuel Showell
house .
We believe the Lemuel Showell house -to be eligible for inclusion
in the Nation!! Register of Historic Places under criteria B and C.
™ J^ llio hJuse is the oldest extant dwelling in the Showell area
constmrtion across
and
e
remains in the Showell community.
VI- 260
Department 'of Housing /and Community Developmem
Shaw House. 21 State Circle. Annapolij, Maryland 21401 (301) 974-5000
-------
I •'
MARYLAND
HISTORICAL
^ ..
' h -J._-'- •; •-
D£VP: OP-';- -
— — — i., ( [ -• -• •
• • i '• /1 o • '•
Wffiwn Donald Sebefer
Gooanor
Jacqueline H. Roger:
Stcnttuy,
TRUST
November 5, 1990
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
Assistant Division Chief
Project Planning Division
State Highway Mministration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
Re: U.S. 113 Relocated from
North of U.S. 50 to
Delaware State Line
Worcester County
Dear Ms. Simpson:
Shank you for your letter of October 4, 1990 which clarified the boundaries
for the Lsmuel Showell House (WD 284) . "As the property was moved to the site,
we can concur with the proposed boundaries which are coterminous with the tax
parcel on the north and west sides, but exclude Davis Electrical Supply to the
south and the fields to the east.
If you should have any questions, please contact Elizabeth Hannold at (301)
974-5007.
Sincerely,
Jo Ellen Freese
Project Review and
Compliance Administrator
Office of Preservation Services
JEF:EH:lcj
cc: Ms. Rita Suffness
Mrs. Howard F. Yerges
Mrs. Page Haitroond
VI- 261
Division of Historical/and Cultural Programs
Department of Housing and Community Development
Shaw House. 21 State Circle, Annapolis. Maryland 21401 (301) 974-5007
-------
vl ARYLAN'D
-IISTORICAL
Wiffiam DonaH Sduefer
Caoanor
Jacqueline H. Rogm
Secretary DHCD
TRUST
5, 1990
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
Assistant Division Chief
Project Planning Division
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
Re: U.S. 113 Relocated from
North of U.S. 50 to
Delaware State Line
Worcester County
Dear Ms. Simpson:
Thank you for your letter of November 13, 1990 concerning the boundary for
St. Martins Church (WO 23). While we understand that the boundaries indicated
on the map attached to your letter encompass the one acre, the size of the
nominated resource in the National Register nomination.
However, an enlarged boundary, extending further to the west, may be
appropriate. Your proposed western boundary is a "line of convenience" rather
than one of the tax parcel bounds. Please indicate on a map the full extent of
the tax parcel. In addition, please show the location of the graveyard
associated with the church which is said to include unmarked graves.
If all possible, the historic property boundary should encompass the
entire historic church yard. In addition, it should provide adequate buffer to
preserve the rural setting and protect the 1759 brick church from the effects
of traffic.
As you may be aware, coranunity mentoers are deeply concerned about the
possible adverse impact to St. Martins Church posed by this project.
VI- 262
Division ol Hbtorfcal/and Cuftunl Prognm*
Department of Housing and Community Development
Shaw House. 21 Sttte Circle. Annapolis. Maryland 21401 (301) 974-5007
-------
Please respond to our coiranents regarding the St. Martins boundary and
provide the project plans as soon as they are available so that we can work
together to ensure that adverse effects are minimized. In addition/ please
forward the Phase I Archeological Report when ccnpleted.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Hannold
Assistant Administrator
Project Review and
Compliance
Office of Preservation Services
EH:lcj
cc: Ms. Rita Suffness
Mrs. Howard Yerges
Mrs. Page Hammond
ft
VI- 263
-------
PROJECT
^
Maryland Department of Tran
State Highway Administration^ ^ ^
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Hal Kassoff
Administrator:.
RE:
••>//
July 26, 1995
j MARYIA-IU HIS10SICAL tRU
L., •
Contract No. AW 821-108-070
US 113 : MD 394 to the
Delaware line
Worcester County, MD
Mr. J. Rodney Little
State Historic Preservation Officer
Maryland Historical Trust
100 Community Place
Crownsville MD 21032-2023
Dear Mr. Little
The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) is initiating
Project Planning studies to increase the capacity and improve the
safety of a 23 mile section of US 113 in Worcester County. fPor
the most part, sections of existing US 113 not already dualized
are proposed for dualization. North of the town of Berlin, _
several relocation alternates are also being studied (highlighted
in red) .
Due to the nature of the proposed project, topography, and land
use, SHA has determined that the area of potential effect (APE)
would extend approximately 500 feet east and west_of the existing
US 113 roadway in most of the project corridor (highlighted in
green) . However, in the northern portion of the study area, from
the Delaware line to north of the town of Berlin, where
relocation alternates are also being studied, the APE width will
expand to approximately 500 feet beyond the limits of the _
furthermost eastern and western alternates. The APE will include
the area between those relocation alternates and roughly extends
to the Maryland and Delaware Railroad Corridor to the west.
Location mapping with the APE demarcated is enclosed.
We seek your signature on the concurrence line below documenting
your agreement with our APE determination for the proposed
project. Please call Ms. Rita Suffness at (410) 333-1183 or
Lorraine Strow at (410) 333-1184 should you have any questions
and/or comments.
VI- 264
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
bailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-071?
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 2120*
-------
Mr. J. Rodney Little
Page Two
Very truly yours,
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
by:
Cynthia D. 'Simpson
Deputy Division Chief
Project Planning Division
StaiJe Historic Preservation Office^
i/
LHE.-LES
Attachment (l)
cc: Ms. Carol Ebright
Mr. Bruce M. Grey
Dr. Charles Hall
Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Ms. Lorraine Strow
Ms. Rita Suffness
Date
VI- 265
-------
MARYLAND
HISTORICAL
Parris N. Glendening, Governor
Patricia J. Payne, Secretary
TRUST
3os!;ii'9B
March 12, 1996
Office of Preservation Services
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
Deputy Division Chief
Project Planning Division
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
Dea
RE: Contract No. WO 719-202(P)
US 113 at MD 90
Worcester County, Maryland
Simpson:
Thank you for your recent letter, dated 23 January 1996 and
received by the Trust on 31 January 1996, requesting our comments
on the above-referenced project.
We have reviewed the following draft report submitted with
your letter: Phase IB Intensive Archeological Investigations, US
Route 113 at Maryland Route 90, Worcester County, Maryland. Dr.
Robert D. Wall prepared the report for SHA. The report contains
succinct documentation on the survey's goals, methods, results
and recommendations. The document is consistent with the
reporting requirements of the Standards and Guidelines for
Archeological Investigations in Maryland (Shaffer and Cole 1994} .
The survey did not locate any archeological sites within the
project area. We agree that further archeological investigations
are not warranted for this particular project.
We have a few minor comments on the draft itself. We ask
SHA to have the consultant address the following issues, in
addition to SHA's remarks, in the preparation of the final
document:
1) The title page should include the full addresses of the
sponsoring agency and the author.
2} The Recommendations should offer an interpretation for the
negative survey results.
3) The final report should be printed double sided.
VI- 266
Division of Historical and Cultural Programs
100 Community Place • Crownsville, Maryland 21032 • (410) 514- —-
3USMO
'UKTV
The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) pledges to foster
the letter and spirit of the law for achieving equal housing opportunity in Maryland.
-------
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
March 12, 1996
Page 2
In terms of the standing structures, we are unable to concur
with your determination of no effects at this time. Your letter
indicated that five historic properties have been identified,
recorded and evaluated in the area of potential effect for the
interchange project. These five properties were surveyed and
recorded as part of a larger project involving improvements to
the U.S. 113 mainline corridor and submitted to our office by a
previous letter dated 4 October 1995. As the review of this
latter undertaking is currently being conducted and not yet
completed, we have, as you requested, given immediate attention
to the five properties identified as part of the interchange
project and being treated here as a separate undertaking.
As identified in your letter of 23 January 1996, the five
properties are located within 1 km of the proposed project along
Carey Road and include the site of the Evans House (WO-25} ; the
Errna and Norwood Davis House (WO-471) ; Vic's Country Store (WO-
472); the Calvin Davis House (WO-473) ; and the Richard J. Jr. anc
Ellen M. Truitt House (WO-474) . As stated in your letter, the
Evans House (WO-25) is no longer standing. Your letter stated
that you believe the remaining four properties are not eligible
for listing in the National Register and that for that reason,
the project will have no effect on historic resources. We do no-.
fully concur with this assessment.
We have based our evaluations of eligibility on the
information found in the individual MHT forms prepared by KCI fo
SHA, staff knowledge of the area and some additional research.
We concur that two of the properties are not eligible for l?stin-
on the National' Register. However, we believe that one is
eligible for listing and that one requires further research
before a determination can be made.
We have determined that the Calvin E. Davis House (WO-473)
and the Richard J. Jr. and Ellen M. Truitt House (WO-474) are no
eligible for the National Register ofJHis-feoric Places. We have
determined that Vic's Country Store 4wQ-47j2£ is eligible for
listing under Criterion C. The building^survives as a good,
intact example of early 20th-century roadside architecture, and
more specifically as a store and gas station located in a small
crossroads community--once a common, but now dying building form
Although no boundary description of the property was provided in
the MHT form, the form indicates the building occupies a. .68-acr
lot. This lot, if historically associated with this commercial
property, would be considered a suitable boundary.
VI- 267
-------
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
March 12, 1996
Page 3
We were unable to evaluate the Erma and Norwood Davis House
(WO-471) based upon the information provided. Although the MHT
form indicates that the house was constructed in the early 20th J
century and stands as an example of a dwelling type sometimes _
referred to as "Homestead" style, a building clearly appears in
this location on the West Berlin plate of The 1877 Atlases and
other Early Maps of the Eastern Shore of Maryland (Published by
the Wicomico Bicentennial Commission, Salisbury, MD, 1976). The
building may be an even earlier, mid-19th-century, side-passage
dwelling that was altered in the later 19th century, but which
retains its original interior plan. Thus, as constructed, and
even as it appears today, the dwelling is not an example of the
"Homestead" style and needs to be re-examined and evaluated under
its proper historic and architectural context. Further research,
including a full title search, tax assessment research, and an
interior site visit is required before the history and
architecture of this property can be fully understood and before
an evaluation can be made.
We look forward to receiving the final archeological report
and NADB form, when available, and to working with SHA on the
Section 106 coordination in the U.S. 113 interchange project.
Further, we assure you that the package of information on
historic properties submitted to our offices as part of the
larger U.S. Route 113 mainline corridor from MD 394 to the
Delaware line is currently being reviewed and will be commented
upon as soon'as possible. We apologize for the delay in our
• response. Also, any specific comments that we may have on any of
the individual MHT forms will be presented to you at the
completion of the review of this larger, mainline project.
If you have questions or require additional information,
please call Ms. Elizabeth Hannold (for structures) at (410) 514-
7636 or Ms. Beth Cole (for archeology) at (410) 514-7631. Thank
you for your cooperation and assistance.
Sincerely,
Rodney Little
State Historic Preservation Officer
JRL/EJC/KPW/EAH
9600260
cc: Dr. Charlie Hall
Ms. Rita Suffness
Mrs. Howard F. Yerges vi- 268
-------
MARYLAND
HISTORICAL
Parrls N. Glendenlng, Gov
Patricia J. Payne, Sec
TRUST
Office of Preservation Services
10 C!| .V:H '38
April 10, 1996
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
Deputy Division Chief
Project Planning Division
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
RE: Contract No. WO 720-101-170
US 113: MD 394 to the Delaware State Line
Worcester County, MD
Dear
pson:
Thank you for your letter of 4 October 1995 and 23 January 1996 regarding the above-referenced
project. These letters identified and evaluated historic standing structures located in the area of potential
effect (APE) for the improvement of a 23-mile section of US 113 in Worcester County, Maryland. This
improvement entails the dualization of US 113 from south of Snow Hill to the Delaware State Line, in
areas not already dualized. The northern section of this project area, from north of Snow Hill to the
Delaware State line was previously surveyed and historic properties were identified and evaluated for
National Register eligibility. As discussed in your letter, your division at the State Highway
Administration (SHA) re-examined the previously surveyed area to confirm the status of identified
properties, and conducted an historic sites reconnaissance survey of the newly added area. The APE for
historic standing structures extended 500 feet on both sides of US 113 from US 50 to MD 394.
including all properties with frontage on US 113 for the entire length of the project and all standing
structures in the previously surveyed and previously identified APE north of Berlin.
Your letter identified nine historic sites which were previously identified and surveyed in June 1990 in
the stretch of US 113 from north of US 50 to the Delaware State line. The letter stated that the
eligibility of these nine sites was determined and agreed upon by SHA and the Maryland Historical
Trust (MHT) in November 1990. According to our records, however (see letter SHA's letter to MHT
14 June 1990), the property known as Showell Store (WO-289) was not evaluated and no determination
of eligibility was agreed upon. Based upon the information in our" historic sites inventory, the property
may be eligible to the National Register. However, we recommend that a more thorough architectural
investigation be conducted to determine the evolution of the commercial structure, which apparently
includes early 19th-century elements. We request that the findings of this study be documented on ar
amendment to the existing MHT Survey form for WO-289. The form should include curreni
photographic documentation of the building following MHT guidelines. A determination of eligibility
VI- 269
Division of Historical and Cultural Programs
100 Community Place • Crownsville, Maryland 21032 • (410) 514-
The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development QDHCD) pledges to foster
the letter and spirit of the law for achieving equal housing opportunity in Maryland.
-------
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
April 10, 1996
Page 2
will be based upon the additional information provided. Further, based upon the 1994 publication of
Paul Touart's book Along the Seaboard Side, which documents the history and architecture of Worcester
County and provides a greater historic context of the county and the Eastern Shore, we have re-
evaluated Hales Farm/Edward Mariner Farm (WO-283) since our 14 June 1990 letter and determined
that it is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The property, including a mid-
19th-century farmhouse, a log corncrib and a smokehouse, provides an excellent representative example
of an intact, mid-19th-century farmhouse and a cohesive grouping of domestic outbuildings. The
building is a good example of its type and retains its integrity. The property is eligible for listing on
the National Register under Criterion C.
The letter also stated that a reconnaissance-level survey of the APE for the newly added area for this
project—US 50 to Maryland 394—identified three additional previously documented resources, and
twenty newly identified resources. The three previously surveyed sites are listed as: -Merry Sherwood
property (WO-19); the Merry Sherwood Tenant House (WO-48); and "the Rochester Farm (WO-317).
The twenty newly identified sites are listed as Waverly (WO-81) and nineteen properties for which
Maryland Historical Trust Inventory of Historic Properties forms (MHT forms) were prepared and
which hold'MHT Inventory numbers WO-462 through ^iVO-480. According to our records, Waverly
(WO-81) was also preyiousjyjrecorded; therefore, it follows that four previously recorded sites and
.-nineteen newly identified sites are located in the APE.
All of the four previously recorded and 19 newly identified sites were thus examined, and if not
previously evaluated, were then evaluated for National Register eligibility by either SHA or your
consultant, KCI Technologies, Inc. Only one property, the Merry Sherwood property (WO-19) had been
previpusly_evaluated; it was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1991. Therefore a total
of 22 properties were evaluated for National Register eligibility.
.-Since the submission of your 4 October 1996 letter, another letter from you dated 23 January 1996 was
received by our offices regarding the interchange of US 113 at MD 90. This letter indicated mat four
of the 22 properties being evaluated as part of the larger US 113 mainline corridor project would
potentially be affected by this interchange and should be reviewed as a separate project Our letter
dated 12 March IJ^provided our assessment of these four properties as a separate project These four
properties are as follows: the Erma and Norwood Davis House (WO-471); Vic's Country Store (WO-
472); the Calvin Davis House (WO-473); and the Richard J. Jr. and Ellen M. Truitt House (WO-474).
Please refer to our letter for an individual assessment of each of these properties.
For the review of the remaining eighteen properties, we have examined your October letter in detail,
as well as the supporting documentation (MHT forms and photographs) and have provided our own
opinions and evaluations of eligibility. We hope our response will be clearly understood in the attached
list This list addresses the eligibility, and if appropriate, the boundaries for each property. The
properties are organized sequentially according to their MHT Inventory numbers.
In addition to reviewing the submitted MHT forms for the determinations of eligibility, we reviewed
mem for clarity and accuracy of content. We have noted several minor, and a few substantive, issues
on the forms that need to be addressed. Our comments regarding these issues are included in
Attachment 1. Please find enclosed the MHT forms, including photographs and site plans, which
require revisions and which are listed as Attachment 2..
VI-270
-------
m
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
April 10, 1996
Page 3
Finally, noticeably absent from the review and evaluation of historic properties in the APE is the
examination of groups or clusters of buildings which may be considered eligible for listing on the
National Register as historic districts. Several crossroads communities and small villages are found
along this stretch of US 113. Please confirm, in writing, whether any of these communities and in
particular, Ironshire and Showell, are eligible for listing on the National Register as an historic district.
Also, although the central core of the village of Newark falls outside the APE, potential boundaries of
a proposed historic-district need to be determined to confirm that such boundaries would not fall within
the APE.
Thank you for providing us this opportunity to comment and for being patient with us in our delayed
response. We look forward to working with SHA on the US 113 mainline corridor project, to receiving
the revised documentation and to receiving the results of the Phase I archeological investigation. Should
you have any questions, please contact Ms. Kim Williams (for structures) at (410) 515-7641 or Ms.
Beth Cole (for archeology) at (410) 514-7628.
Sincerely,
J. Rodney Little
State Historic Preservation Officer
JRL/EJC/EAH/KPW
9502659
Enclosures
cc: Dr. Charlie Hall
Ms. Rita Suffhess
Mrs. Howard F. Verges
VI- 271
-------
a a m to - - 4) tn
O -rl O 4) ffl JJ C
O -H 1-1 O OJ -H tH
cd o> o 3 3 a
ffl JJ 3 OJ 0 H —H
JJ-H
n
a
o
a
H
3
D)
w
Cn
•H
r-i
H
A
•H
Cn
•H
rH
H
JJ
§
rH
5
Q)
H
JJ
U
•H
O
JJ
BJ
•H
IM
O
a)
jj
a
-rl
Oi
DC
O
«) 3 «
03
Eligible
4)
JJ
(0
JJ
CO
1
10
2
rl
S
0)
JJ
I
Q
M
ll
en
Haverly
o
a>
jj
•H
rl
O
rl
I
rl
a)
JJ
n
•H
tn
a)
«
1
•H
JJ
m
s
0)
A
I I
&
"M
O JJ
« OrH JJ
JJ
C
o
tn
C
ft
JJ
m
gible for
JJ
g
os 'Fa
^
rH
n
I
o
JI
o
o
§
i
-------
0}
s
m
i-H
£U
O
•a
5 s
ft a
a *
Not
Eligible
rl
0)
JJ
01
•H
Ol
&
1
0)
§
0)
•H
JJ
n
•H
O
4-1
Not Eligible
Not Eligible
o
n
JJ
O
n
01
•H
HI
to
9
£
a
I
p
r? 0) O
(BTf-rl
? n n
S 3 oj
» jj
O rl-H
*SS
•"s
894
8Ǥ
rH rH_,
ii1
•l!l
0) 0) JJ
5*8
jj JJ E
m n «
jj i jj
Ci-H IS
o> n) JJ
m > oi
fl)-H „.
rl > g •
ft OJ.C O
OJPJJJ a
"_,»»
135-3
S-g'gl
III*
pi 0)
SE'sS
VJJ
5
!
H
H
JJ
§
§
O
g
tn
10
if
i
bl
ndi
sti
ern
or
ple
soui
ig
i
di
tt
f
m
Re
01
rH
O
•H
rH
H
JJ
§
•rl .-4 U •»-> ..
^l5&J8JS
w^S^dgS
go o g-i-rl^
*l 2 ° » o S
SH-HAT,OS
gSIS-SlS-
8«1^i
n -q -H § • * u
iiiilti
"•s-is^g
03 BJ JJ G
• (0 H H
CD r* ""^
C jj O .14^
O -H 01 -H
•H 4) 0) C
M H rH )H O)
0) O Ol P -H
jj IM E JJ o]
•rH (8 IS
_ „ Jj » X -Uiw
S jj CJ flj 0) W 0
§
S
JJ
01
•H
0)
£
I
•H
JJ
S
,8
jj
§
i
jj
o
o
I«H
0)
rH
5
01
•H
i-H
0)
JJ
§
fa
0)
fi
10
n
d
A
JJ
conc
However, the property s
ographed. Please provide
rH
5
5
H
H
JJ
§
H
0»
•H
H
H
JJ
g
l-l
BI
•H
S
jj
S
er
9
rH
3
01
•H
rH
H
JJ
03 rH
•H 0)
$%
*&
rH 0)
il
•H-H
JJ
§
.
^
"V4
,
H
•H
Ol
•H
rH
H
JJ
JJ
O
•H
01
S
rH
S
o
•H
JJ
>z
«
rH
A
"ft
•H
H
H
JJ
§
•H
JJ
n
§
4J
01
0) JJ 01
H H
O
O |
w 2
r^ «
a g
01 -rt
Walsh House
and D
ly
do
hs
JJ O 0
jfova
4) H
M > n>
O m 0
G
CA
g on the Nationa
ist
H
O
d)
rH
-H
01
JJ
§
o) g
rl S
o o
jj PI
concur
o
r>
§
vo
U
rl
Hi
0)
JJ
•
S1
ationa
u
J3
JJ
§
O)
•H
01
•H
V4
0
U-l
J3
•H
01
•H
JJ
o
a
a
fa
I
(U
PI
U
§
U
-------
§
a
EH
f i
Eligible
1
en
Not Eligible
# Property Name
c
1
H
EH
S
Vic's Country Store
S
^i
t
o x
S S
/
of this opinion. -The MHT form,
rs eligibility to the National
C tn
rch 1996 for discussio
i address the buildini
* JJ
H "a
01
•aJ
concur. See letter from MHT to SHA date
Resource Sketch Map, needs to be rev:
jj Ol •
c-S «
O S ffl
T3 f*H *f^
O 01
0 G « e
it( •*• * U w
nion presented by KCI
See letter dated 12 M<
ample of a "Cape Cod"
nilar dwelling style t
.t numbers and characi
Resource Sketch Map,
•H X fffl 0)
0« . • 4) S. g A
Q U i* fc jj
41 S"o * W 0)
^3 CQ O ! fl C
iJ f^ tn ' . .^
with SHA's opinion, which differs from
louse is not eligible to the National Reg
that the Calvin E. Davis House is not a >
tely considered a colonial style cottage
ooks and catalogs and which survives :
are of the period. The MHT form, includ
w* ~ «a jj
3 aj
rH
CO
M
O
§
U
0
S
Not Eligible
Not Eligible
I
H
H
S
in
t-
t
O
9.
al Register.
c
0
•H
JJ
Jjj
4)
£
JJ
0
JJ
4) •
H
M
rH
O
U
O
m
•H
4)
rH
rH
JJ
18
A
JJ
fc
g
§
U
4)
S
Not Eligible
Not Eligible
Holloway House
IB
«gl
1
O
s
tional Register.
n)
JS
OJ
t
that Holloway House is not eligible to
h
3
§
o
4)
*
Not Eligible
Not Eligible
o
n
3
0
w
1
•s
01
1
H
-H
Ol
M
>
t*
i
*
L Register.
m
ligible to the Nation
4)
JJ
O
c
01
•H
4)
I
A
2
at
01
•a
(0
rH
•H
S1
JJ
JJ
JJ
Vl
u
§
o
4)
s
Eligible
Not Eligible
Roland H. Bttauchanp
Feed Storage Buildings
CO
r-
i
O
S
Buildings are eligible for the
evolution of truck farming in
:ury rural industrial community,
the two warehouses, the s ingle -
s revised accordingly, including
4) 0 £ 4) S
Beauchamp Feed Storag
s association with th
e of the a mid-20th-cei
property should includ
The MHT form needs to 1
rce Sketch Map.
. . rH 3
"V « x ** S,«
Qi Q) *^ £«
"? 0 O ™ (0
concur. It is our opinion that the Rol
Register under Criterion A, for the pr<
County, and Criterion C, as an excellent
warehouses and housing. The boundaries
tiling, and the twelve, contributingr cott
ment of Significance (Section 8) and th
jj 14 01 3 4>
O iJJ
O O O 3 rH CO
•O -H O rH-»H
JJ U O g 4)
4) <8 o c « .e
3: a S -H
-------
4J O J
nj -H 4J A a
a , -H u u
u k S o
*_
a
Dl
•H
H
8
to
H
a
5
H
M
M 01
n -H
• 0)
5 A!
*n 11
i4 rt
U 4)
H d
a *H)
3
n « s a «5
O fl) jji-J
oo^g
3*
U 0)
O M
T3-H
Sfc
^^
8«
eg
•H -H
g,a
d)
^2
9§°
«*8
sSS
" §ii
S " o
8s|
Os.a
S 4) 0)
.55
•u IMid
0) H 0)rH O
.C-H.CC! u
U T3 -U O 0)
VI- 275
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
LIST OF ENCLOSED MHT FORMS
INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS AND MAPS
WO-465 Parker Kami
WO-467 J.T. Mumford House
WO-471 Erma and Norwood Davis House
WO-472 Vic's Country Store
WO-473 Calvin E. Davis House
WO-478 Roland W. Beauchamp Feed Storage Buildings
VI- 276
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Wii
Secretary
Hal Kassoff
Administrator
JulyS, 1996
Re: Contract No. WO 719-202 (P)
US 113 at MD 90 /S"^^-.-^__
Worcester County, Maryland-;.; • Q: is? // v\^-
Mr. J. Rodney Little : •-.?
State Historic Preservation Officer . :
Maryland Historical Trust • ........
100 Community Place - -..,'"'' % "'.. -j -=,.
Crownsville MD 21032-2023 ' ' —
Dear Mr. Little:
Enclosed for your library are two copies of the final report Phase IB Intensive Archeologu
Investigations, US Route 113 at Maryland Route 90, Worcester County, Maryland, by
Dr. Robert Wall, along with a completed NADB form. The final report has been modified
according to comments by your office and the State Highway Administration. Thank you
your assistance throughout this project, and please feel free to contact Mr. Richard Ervin
321-2213 if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Louis H. Ege, Jr., Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Stf.
Project Planning Division
Stat^Historic P/eservation Office
LHE:RGE:ejs
Enclosures (3)
cc: Mr. Lee Canigan
Dr. Charles Hall
Ms. Lorraine Strow
VI- 277
My telephone number is (410) 545-8410
7/
• f
Date
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1 -800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
MARYLAND
HISTORICAL
Parris N. Glendening, Governor
Patricia J. Payne, Secretary
TRUST
ffice of Preservation Services
July 18, 1996
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
Deputy Division Chief
Project Planning Division
State Highway Administration
707 Norih Calveit Street
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
RE: Contract No. WO 719-202(P)
US 113 @ MD 90
Worcester County, MD
Dear
Thank you for your letter of 20 June 1996 regarding the above-referenced project This lettei : provides
a modification of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) of that shown on the initial letter regarding this
nroietSdSed 23 January 1996. As we understand it, the revised APE was reduced m bread* based
^.^SSluSd^^. Suffhess. Tl««evi^AFBc«^o«l^«™^ieR
Sid Ellen Truitt house (WO-474), which SHA and the Trust concur is not dered eliible for
on the National Register of Historic Places.
are unable at this time to concur with the revised APE, and thus the existence
ible nrooerties within the APE. While the reduced boundary on the eastern edge of the APE
££^J^^ nature of the site (as pointed out in your letter^ it is ; not dear w
th- APE does not extend south of Carey Road. Based upon the aenal view and previous m-p uucument;,
h ap^ tSt L mterchange would'service the alternate Route US 113 designated as Alternate 4 »d
extending due south of Carey -Road to merge with the existing US 113 south of this interchange, to order
foT^complete the review of this project, please provide an explanation for the proposed southern
boundary of the APE.
Thank you for providing us this opportunity to comment. I will be out of &e office until the week of
August 1, 1996, but look forward to your response. You may reach me at (410) 515-7637.
XJSIWG
uwrv
iberly Prodiro Williams
VI- 278 Preservation Officer
Division of Historical and Cultural Programs
100 Community Place • Crownsville, Maryland 21032 • (410) 514-
The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) pledges to foster
the letter and spirit of the law far achieving equal housing opportunity in Maryland.
-------
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
My 18, 1996
Page 2
EIC/KPW
9602489
co: Dr. Charlie Hall
Ms. Rita Stiffness
Mrs. Howard F. Yerges
VI- 279
-------
MARYLAND
HISTORICAL
Parris N. Gfendemng, Oovernor
Patricia J. Payne, Secretary
TRUST
January 7, 1997
Office of Preservation Services
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
Deputy Division Chief
Project Planning Division
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
RE: Contract No. WO 720 Bl 1
US 113: MD 394 to Delaware State Line
Worcester County, MD
Dear
son:
Thank you for your letter of 11 December 1996 informing us of the status of the US Route 113 corridor
study and for providing us with the revised inventory forms and other requested information asked for
by our office in April 1996. We have reviewed, the revised forms as well as your recommendations for
National Register eligibility, and proposed National Register boundaries, as applicable, and have provided
comments below.
The following revised Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) forms have been reviewed and
accepted for inclusion into our inventory files: the Parker Farm (WO-465); the J.T. Mumford House
(WO-467); Vic's Country Store (WO-472); and the Calvin E. Davis House (WO^73). We have also
reviewed the other forms and have the following comments:
Hales Farm/Edward Mariner Farm (WO-283): we agree that the National Register boundaries
need not include the entire 500 acres historically associated with the farm, especially given that
it has been subdivided recently and .includes contemporary structures. We agree that the
boundaries should include at least tne main house and its associated outbuildings. We feel that
given the rural historic character and agricultural tradifiorr 3f Tfie property, However, that the
proposed boundaries are too severely reduced and should include at least some surrounding,
cultivated land. We propose that the historic resources, plus a five-acre tract of land surrounding
rnese resources and placing them in their appropriate context amidst cultivated fields, be
developed for this property. A resource sketch map, showing the NR boundaries and the
resources within the boundaries should be prepared for this property, according to the Trust's
Guidelines for Completing the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties Form (MHT, July,
1991).
USING
JNiT>
VI- 280
Division of Historical and Cultural Programs
100 Community Place « Crownsville. Maryland 21032 • (410) 514-
The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) pledges 10 foster
the letter and spirit of the law for achieving equal housing opportunity in Maryland.
-------
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
January 2, 1997
Page 3
Should you decide to go with this latter approach, only the Resource Sketch Map needs to be
revised and the whole resubmitted to our office.
In addition to the above-listed revised forms, we have reviewed the revised Resource Sketch Maps
showing the National Register boundaries for the Transpenninsular Line Marker (WO-479) and the
Maryland/Delaware State Marker (WO-480). The map for WO-479 is that which was submitted with the
original MIHP form and which shows NR boundaries. The map for WO-480, however, does not provide
National Register boundaries for the eligible property and is thus being returned for revision.
Thank you for providing us this opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call Ms. Kim Williams at (410) 514-7637.
Sincerely
J. Rodney Little
State Historic Preservation Officer
JRL/KPW/9604189
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Bruce Gray
Ms. Rita Sufmess
Dr. Charles Hall
Mrs. Howard F. Verges
Mrs. Ricks Savage
VI- 281
-------
MARYLAND
ilSTORICAL
^ * '* " .. • / .
1'. LVF. ;..0"'r-
Parris N. Glendening, Governor
Patricia J. Payne, Secretary
r R u s T
March 6, 1997
ice of Preservation Services
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
Deputy Division Chief
Project Planning Division
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
RE: Contract No. WO 720 B11
• US 113: MD 394 to Delaware State Line
Worcester County, MD
Dear Ms. Simpson:
Thank you for your letter of 14 February 1997 providing us with a description of the project
alternatives; an evaluation of the project impacts, as prepared by Garrow & Associates consultants; and
including the revised inventory forms (or attachments) as requested by our office by letter dated 7 January
1997. We have reviewed the inventory forms and are pleased to accept them for inclusion hi our library,
as revised.
Based upon this last submission, and according to our records, the documentation of historic
standing structures within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for this project is almost complete. Still
lacking are the negatives (labeled according to MHT Guidelines) for the black and white photographs,
and the color slides (labeled, also according to MHT Guidelines) of the inventoried properties. We await
receipt of these items to complete the documentation phase of this project.
We have reviewed Garrow and Associates evaluation of impacts to historic standing structures,
but will reserve comment on these conclusions until we have received the results of the Phase I
archeological study. Thank you for providing us this opportunity to comment. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (410) 514-7637.
Sincerely
Kimberly Prothro Williams
VI- 282
Division of Historical and Cultural Programs
100 Community Place • Crownsville, Maryland 21032 • (410) 514-.
The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) pledges to foster
the letter and spirit of the law for achieving equal housing opportunity in Maryland.
-------
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
March 7, 1997
Page 2
KPW/9700379
cc: Ms. Bruce Gray
Ms. Rita Suffhess
Dr. Charles Hall
Mrs. Howard F. Verges
Mrs. Ricks Savage
VI- 283
-------
MARYLAND
HISTORICAL
rv;.-5
Parris N. Glendening, Governor
?1 Patricia J. Payne, Secretary
^•1
TRUST
•ffice of Preservation Services
March 18, 1997
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
Deputy Division Chief
Project Planning Division
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
Project No. WO720B11
US 113 from MD 394 to the Delaware Line
Worcester County, Maryland
RE:
Dear
•• ••-
Thank you for your recent letters, dated 14 February 1997 and 7 March 1997, requesting our
comments on the above-referenced project.
Based on the information provided with your correspondence, we concur with SHA's
determination that the all four build alternatives (Alternate 3S, Alternate 3N, Alternate 4N - .
Modified, and the Combination 3N/4N Alternate - Modified) will have adverse effects on historic
properties, including historic structures and archeological resources. SHA's environmental
documentation for the project should accurately represent the current status of Section 106
consultation for the alternatives as a whole, as well as the specific impacts for individual resources.
The Trust urges SHA to carefully examine and consider options which would avoid and jmrumize tne
project's adverse effects on historic and archeological properties. We look forward to continued
coordination with SHA, FHWA, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and other interested
parties to resolve the project's adverse effects. The negotiation should result in the execution of a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for this undertaking. The MOA should include stipulations
addressing the treatment of specific affected historic properties, as well as the procedures for
completing archeological evaluation and treatment for the selected alternate.
VI- 284
Division of Historical and Cultural Programs
100 Community Place • Crownsville. Maryland 21032 • (410) 514--
•«. 7
77ie Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) pledges to foster
the letter and spirit of the law for achieving equal housing opportunity in Maryland.
-------
t
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
March 18, 1997
Page 2
SHA's 14 February 1997 letter included a brief description of the project alternates and an
evaluation of project impacts prepared by Garrow & Associates, in January 1997. Please note that
the evaluation of project impacts was based upon the alternates shown in two separate maps, one
showing the Northern Study Area and the other showing the Southern Study Area. These maps
indicate Alternate 3S, Alternate 3N, and Alternate 4N Modified on maps showing the historic
resources. It is these maps, included in Garrow's evaluation, which the Trust has reviewed. Any
other proposed modifications and new alignments, which differ from those shown on these maps, will
need to be evaluated for impacts on historic properties and submitted to the Trust with the appropriate
documentation for review. Attachment 1 to this letter lists our specific comments on SHA's
assessment of impacts for individual architectural resources. SHA should revise its environmental
documentation to reflect the specific impacts discussed.
We have reviewed the following draft archeological report, prepared by Garrow &
Associates, Inc., for the project: Phase IB Archeological Identification Survey of US 113 from MD
394 (Snow Hill) to the Delaware Line, Worcester County, Maryland. The report provides
descriptions of the survey's goals, methods, results, and recommendations. The survey identified 36
archeological sites and 47 isolated finds within the study area. The identified resources represent the
area's span of human occupation and use from prehistoric through historic time periods. All of the^
build alternatives would require additional Phase H investigations to conclusively determine the sites'
National Register eligibility. In addition, further Phase I survey of areas where access was denied is
warranted. Agreement on the precise resources requiring additional investigation has yet to be
resolved, pending review of additional information the consultant must provide.
We acknowledge that SHA has made a reasonable and good faith effort to identify
archeological sites within the four proposed build alternates. While it appears that an appropriate
level of effort was performed, the report does not currently provide adequate information consistent
with the reporting requirements of the Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in
Maryland (Shaffer and Cole 1994). The current draft lacks sufficient documentation on the survey
and its results for the Trust to be able to concur with SHA on the adequacy of the survey efforts or to
agree with SHA's assessments of National Register eligibility for the individual archeological sites and
isolated finds. Attachment 2 lists our specific concerns and comments on the draft archeological
report. We ask SHA to have the consultant address these issues, in addition to SHA's remarks, in the
preparation of a revised draft report. Once we have received and reviewed a revised draft, we will
promptly provide comments and appropriate recommendations.
We understand SHA's scheduling constraints for this undertaking. Please be assured that
Trust staff will make every effort to complete the remaining reviews and coordination as expeditiously
as possible. We are confident that all involved parties can satisfactorily resolve these outstanding
issues through appropriate and conscientious consultation. Submittal of complete and thorough
documentation will greatly facilitate completion of the Section 106 review for this undertaking.
VI- 285
-------
-*..
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
March 18, 1997
Page 4 - Attachment 1
ATTACHMENT 1
MHT COMMENTS ON SHA'S ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS
FOR ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
1) No-Build Options:
The no-build alternate would be limited to minor modifications during maintenance and safety
operations, The Trust concurs with Garrow & Associates assessment that the no-build
alternate will not impact historic (standing) structures.
2) TSM Improvements:
As we understand it, the TSM improvements provide upgrades along the existing roadway to
alleviate congestion and enhance traffic safety, without major alteration to the existing two-
lane highway. They would be part of an integrated plan of phased safety and capacity
improvements, and include short-term spot improvements. We concur with Garrow &
Associates assessment that the TSM improvements will not impact historic (standing)
structures.
3) Alternate 3S:
Alternate 3S involves the dualization of the existing alignment of US 113, in the Southern
Study Area of the project. Dualization involves construction of a new two-lane roadway
adjacent to the existing facility, and retention of the existing facility as the northbound or
southbound roadway to the extent possible. We concur with Garrow & Associates that
Alternate 3S will not impact historic standing structures in the APE.
4) Alternate 3N:
Alternate 3N involves the dualization of the existing alignment of US 113, in the Northern
Study Area of the project. Dualization involves construction of a new two-lane roadway
adjacent to the existing facility, and retention of the existing facility as the northbound or
southbound roadway to the extent possible. Garrow & Associates determined that Alternate
3N will adversely impact four historic structures (Hale/Mariner Farm; Vic's Country Store,
the Showell Store, and the Lemuel Showell House). Garrow & Associates determined that
Alternate 3N would not adversely impact St. Martin's Church. In our opinion, Alternate 3N
will cause a change in the historic setting of St. Martin's Church, listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, and will thus have an adverse impact on the historic property.
Presently, the church faces US 113, near the intersection with Racetrack Road. The church is
set back from the intersection and is buffered from US 113 by a row of coniferous trees. The
chapel retains its rural setting despite the intersection; however, the dualization of the
highway here will increase traffic loads, increase noise and generally detract from the rural
setting of the church-one of the characteristics which qualifies the church for inclusion hi the
VI- 286
-------
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
March 18, 1997
Page 5 - Attachment 1
National Register of Historic Places. In our opinion, Alternate 3N will thus have adverse
impacts on five historic structures.
5) Alternate 4N (Modified):
Alternate 4N involves the construction of a new, four-lane divided highway away from the
existing facility. Garrow & Associates determined that Alternate 4N would not adversely
impact historic structures. In our opinion, Alternate 4N will have an adverse impact on St.
Martin's Church. The church presently fronts US 113, but overlooks flat, cultivated fields
beyond. The construction of a new, four-lane divided highway here will eliminate the present
view from the church and will alter the rural character of the small chapel. Alternate 4N will
thus adversely impact one historic structure.
6) Combination Alternate:
The Combination Alternate is based on parts of Alternate 3N and Alternate 4N Modified.
Garrow & Associates determined that the Combination Alternate will not adversely impact
any historic structures. We concur with their determination that the Combination Alternate
will not adversely impact historic structures.
VI- 287
-------
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
March 18, 1997
Page 6 - Attachment 2
ATTACHMENT 2
MHT COMMENTS ON DRAFT PHASE IARCHEOLOGICAL REPORT
The first four items include general overriding comments regarding the draft, which must be
corrected for the report to provide adequate documentation on which to base decisions of National
Register eligibility, sites requiring additional investigation, and the adequacy of the survey coverage.
The remaining comments reflect specific corrections needed to the draft.
1) The report does not provide adequate integration of archeological and architectural resources
issues. (The recent work SHA conducted for the ICC project is a useful model of effective
integration.)
2) The report lacks sufficient description and documentation of all the survey methods and
results (including negative results). The Results only present discussion of identified sites and
isolated finds. The report contains no discussion or interpretation of those survey areas where
nothing was found. The report has no maps illustrating the designated high and low
probability areas. Without this additional documentation, it is difficult for the Trust to assess
and concur with the adequacy of the survey efforts as a whole.
3) The discussion of identified sites does not offer interpretation for site stratigraphy or discuss
analysis of recovered materials (beyond basic artifact type and counts). This omission
contributes to a general lack of justification supporting the recommendations for specific
resources. Based on the information presented, the Trust is not yet able to concur with the
assessments of National Register eligibility for the identified sites.
4) The report does not provide sufficient justification to explain and support all of its
designations of sites versus isolated finds, particularly for resources that correspond with
structures illustrated on the historic atlases.
5) The Abstract, as well as the remaining chapters should address sites - not individual
components within sites. While a site may include multiple components, the site as a whole
either requires additional work to determine its National Register eligibility or is ineligible.
6) The report should include a detailed description of the currently proposed alternates,
consistent with SHA's descriptions in its environmental documents for the project.
7) The report should contain a figure illustrating the location and limits of the project
alternatives, with appropriate labels. We are concerned to note that the survey corridors
illustrated in the report do not entirely coincide with the alternates mapping SHA recently
provided to the Trust. SHA should carefully examine the corridors to determine whether or
not the Phase I survey adequately covered the alignments as currently proposed.
8) The Historic Overview should be organized following the Trust's historic context outline,
presented in the Maryland Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan (1986).
VI- 288
I/'
-------
ft
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
March 18, 1997
Page 7 - Attachment 2
9) The Previous Investigations section should be expanded to include discussion of pertinent
prior studies conducted in the project vicinity. The current draft only discusses previously
inventoried archeological sites in a 2 mile corridor.
10) Page 35: The report states - The former locations of 33 structures located-within the tested
areas of the project corridor -were identified from historic maps (Table 3). The current Table
3 is a listing of National Register eligible historic structures along the corridor. Where is the
table listing the 33 structures identified from the historic maps?
11) Page 35: The discussion of historic structures in the corridor area should address all
inventoried structures, not just those resources determined eligible for the National Register.
National Register status of structures is not a deciding factor for assessing archeological
potential of a property. Table 3 should be revised to include all of the inventoried structures,
noting: inventory number, name, National Register status, archeological survey status,
relation to structures on historic maps, and any associated sites/isolated find resources.
12) Page 37: Why did the background research emphasize examination of National Register
eligible structures only? Certainly the presence of any structure older than 50 years,
regardless of its National Register status, would contribute to the archeological potential of a
given area.
13) The report should include maps illustrating the designated areas of archeological sensitivity,
or sensitivity information should be added to existing figures.
14) Page 38: Paragraph four states that A list of each identified survey segment is included in
Table 4. The current Table 4 does not match the description provided in the text, nor does
the report appear to contain the table discussed, which would be a valuable addition to the
draft.
15) Page 38: The report should provide a more detailed description of the surface survey
methods employed. We question the adequacy of surface inspection alone for those areas
exhibiting 25% surface visibility. Was the surface collection systematic? What is meant
" where the Results discuss surface collections of locations'?
16) Pages 38-39: We are somewhat unclear how the percentages of survey access were produced.
Are the properties where no response was received included in these figures and Table 5?
Doesn't a no response essentially equal an access denial, since the no response parcels were
not surveyed?
17) As noted above, Chapter V must discuss the survey results for all of the survey transects, not
just for identified resources. For each transect, or group of contiguous transects, the report
must include: transect descriptions, designation of high versus low potential, access issues,
soils, methods of testing, and results (including negative results). The results should discuss
the number of initial and supplemental shovel tests excavated per survey transect, site, or
isolated find. Were adequate supplement shovel tests employed to better define the nature and
VI- 289
-------
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
March 18, 1997
Page 8 - Attachment 2
extent of identified resources? The report should provide interpretations for any negative
results. If a transect was designated as high potential (for instance a structure illustrated on
historic maps) and nothing was found, what is the explanation?
18) It would be useful if the report sequentially organized its discussion by survey transect,
incorporating identified sites and isolated finds as they occur along the survey corridor.
19) The report text should reference the pertinent figures in Appendix 1 which illustrate the
survey transect, site, or isolated find under discussion.
20) Site descriptions should correlate between the outline format, narrative, and recommendations
regarding historic period associations. The current draft is not consistent hi its reference to
18th, 19th, or 20th c. components.
21) The report should present justification for site boundaries, particularly when those boundaries
are coterminous with the proposed right of way.
22) The report must present interpretations for the identified soil stratigraphy (plowzone, fill,
subsoil, buried A horizon, disturbed, etc.), hi addition to the basic soils descriptions.
23) In general, the report does not present justification to support its claims that sites do not
contain intact cultural deposits. For instance, page 79 states that Though structures on both
the 1877 West Berlin map and Martenet's 1885 map correspond to this location, the site
stratigraphy indicates the absence of intact cultural deposits. The report makes numerous,
similar, unsubstantiated statements, such as - the site stratigraphy indicates that no intact
cultural deposits are likely to exist. Given the limited extent of testing, we are unclear how
such statements may confidently be made, particularly for historic sites which are likely to
contain subsurface architectural remains, pits, and shaft features.
24) The report maps and illustrations should note any inventoried structures (with inventory
number and name) illustrated on the figures.
25) Figures 12a through 12i should name the appropriate quadrangle illustrated.
26) Figures 18, 19, 20, and 36 must contain keys for the artifacts illustrated. The key should list
the artifacts with appropriate site and lot numbers.
27) Page 64: The consultant should complete an official Trust archeological site inventory form
for the 19th c. Nelson family cemetery.
28) Page 97: What is the historic structure prominently illustrated in the photo? Why is there no
discussion of this structure and its possible association with the identified archeological site
18W0196?
VI- 290
-------
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
March 13, 1997
Page 9 - Attachment 2
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
35)
36)
37)
38)
39)
Pages 123 - 124:
18WO208?
What is the basis for the extremely linear and narrow boundary of site
Page 130: Why does the report dismiss site 18WO212, a high density artifact scatter (18th -
20th c.), with an extensive variety of artifact types, because the site could not be matched to
any structures depicted on the historic [maps]? In Chapter m, the report notes that 7877
maps do not necessarily show all of the houses in the corridor, but were weighted toward the
dwellings of prominent citizens, many of whom paid subscription fees to have their names
placed on the map. Tenant houses and the homes of black farmers are undoubtedly
underrepresented. These houses are likely to have been located closer to the road.
The consultant should carefully examine and justify, the designations of sites and isolated
finds. Isolated finds should be compared with the locations of inventoried historic structures
and structures illustrated on historic maps. Better explanations must be provided for why the
consultant determined that certain isolated finds represent roadside trash or field manuring,
particularly in light of the issue raised in the previous comment.
Where is the discussion of the results of the project's artifact analyses?
As noted above, the Recommendations must discuss and evaluate the National Register
eligibility of the sites as individual resources, not as components within sites. The eligibility
evaluations must be more detailed and provide supporting justification. In our opinion,
insufficient data exists to demonstrate that certain sites are hi fact eligible for the National
Register. The level of Phase I survey was not sufficient to demonstrate eligibility. The
survey was likely adequate to determine that certain sites are ineligible for the National
Register, but the report must provide better justification to support its recommendations of
ineligibility. As you know, the Trust is uncomfortable with the term, potentially eligible.
Additional Phase n investigations is warranted to conclusively determine the eligibility or
ineligibility of certain sites for the National Register.
The report should discuss the project's potential effects on identified resources.
The Summary and Conclusions should provide greater discussion and interpretation of the
survey results, with particular attention to the general research questions identified in Chapter
A V •
Page 165: The report should describe the previously identified resources, 18WO110 and
18WO124, located in transects where access was denied.
Appendix 2 must include the official MHT Lot numbers hi the artifact inventory.
Appendix 3 is a very useful addition to the report.
The final report should be printed double sided.
VI- 291
-------
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
March 18, 1997
Page 3
If you have questions or require additional information, please call Ms. Kim Williams (for
structures) at (410) 514-7637 or Ms. Beth Cole (for archeology) at (410) 514-7631. Thank you for
your continued cooperation and assistance.
Sincerely,
J. Rodney Little
Director/State Historic
Preservation Officer
JRL/EJC/KPW
9700606
Attachment
Mr. Bruce Grey (SHA)
Dr. Charles Hall (SHA)
Ms. Renee Sigel (FHWA)
Mr. Don Klima (ACHP)
Mr. Vance Hobbs (COE)
Mr. John Forren (EPA)
Mr. Robert Zepp (USFWS)
Mr. John Nichols (NMFS)
Ms. Cynthia Wilkerson (NFS)
Mr. Ray Dintaman (DNR)
Mr. James Noonan (MOP)
Mr. Elder Ghigiarelli (MDE)
Mrs. Howard F. Verges
Mrs. Ricks Savage
VI- 292
-------
MARYLAND
HISTORICAL
Parris N. Glendening, Gove
Patricia J. Payne, Secrt
TRUST
Office of Preservation Services
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
Deputy Division Chief
Project Planning Division
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
April 23, 1997
Dear
RE: Project No. WO720B 1 1
•US 113: MD 394 to the Delaware Line
Worcester County, Maryland
Thank you for your recent letter, received by the Trust on 11 April 1997, requesting
confirmation of SHA's determination of effect for the proposed alternatives and seeking comments on
the revised draft archeological report prepared for the above-referenced project.
Determination of Effect: Based on the documentation provided by SHA and summarized in the
Eligibility/Effects table dated 10 April 1997, the Trust concurs with SHA's determination of effect for
the various project alternatives, as outlined below:
Alternative
Alternative IS & IN (No Build)
Alternative 2S and 2N (TSM).
Alternative 2S (20* Median)
Alternative 3S & 3N (20' Median)
Alternative 3S & 3N (34' Median)
Alternative 4N Modified (20' Median)
Alternative 4N Modified (34' Median)
Combined Alt. 3N & 4N Modified (20' Median)
Combined Alt. 3N & 4N Modified (34' Median)
Effect
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
Adverse Effect
Adverse Effect
Adverse Effect
Adverse Effect
Adverse Effect
Adverse Effect.
In addition to addressing these new alternatives and submitting our determinations of effect,
we have re-examined the potential impact that Alternative 4N Modified and the Combination
Alternative will have on St. Martin's Church. As noted hi telephone conversations from you and in
your letter, the alignments of Alternative 4N Modified and Combination Alternative in the vicinity of
St. Martin's Church are identical, and therefore, should have the same impact on the church. We
agree that both alternatives will adversely impact historic properties. The determination of Adverse
Vl-292a
Division of Historical and Cultural Programs
100 Community Place • Crownsviile, Maryland 21032 • (410) 514-
Tlie Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) pledges to foster
the letter and spirit of the law for achieving equal housing opportunity in Maryland.
-------
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
April 23, 1997
Page 2
Effect for both of these alternatives remains as stated in our 18 March 1997 letter.
Archeology Report: We have carefully reviewed the following revised draft report, prepared for
SHA by Garrow & Associates, Inc.: Phase IB Archeological Identification Survey of USllSfrom
MD394 (Snow Hill) at the Delaware Line, Worcester County, Maryland. The revised draft
successfully incorporates the comments the Trust made on the original version and constitutes a
notable improvement over the earlier report. The document meets reporting requirements of the
Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland (Shaffer and Cole 1994).
The survey identified 39 archeological sites and 45 isolated artifact finds in the study area.
The identified resources reflect the study area's broad range of occupation and use from prehistoric
. ..throughout historic time periods. We agree that the 45 isolated finds/refuse disposal areas warrant no
further consideration. Based on the documentation presented in the report, we agree that the
following 19 sites do not meet the criteria for eligibility in the National Register of Historic Places
due to their lack of integrity and inability to yield important information: 18WO62, 18WO182,
18WO186, 18WO187, 18WO188, 18WO189, 18WO192, 18WO198, 18WO199, 18WO200,
18WO205, 18WO206, 18WO207, 18WO208, 18WO210, 18WO211, 18WO213, 18WO217, and
18WO218.
The remaining 20 sites warrant Phase II level archeological evaluation to conclusively
determine their National Register eligibility: 18WO181, 18WO183, 18WO184, 18WO185,
18WO190, 18WO191, 18WO193, 18WO194, 18WO195, 18WO196, 18WO197, 18WO201,
18WO202, 18WO203, 18WO204, 18WO209, 18WO212, 18WO214, 18WO215, and 18WO216. We
understand that SHA plans to implement a programmatic approach to the Phase n research, since
many of the resources represent similar site types (rural farmsteads dating from the 18th and 19th
centuries). We thoroughly support such an approach and will be happy to work with SHA in
developing a meaningful and cost effective Phase n program. We note that sites 18WO215 and
18WO216 are situated outside the area of potential effects for this undertaking, as currently planned.
Thus, SHA is not responsible for conducting Phase n investigation of these two resources. The
Effects/Eligibility table incorrectly states that 18WO216 is ineligible; SHA should revise the table to
list the site as ND (not determined) and located outside the APE.
We agree that additional Phase I archeological survey is warranted to examine those high
potential segments of the project area to which access was denied. The attachment lists our specific
comments on the draft itself. We ask SHA to have the consultant address these issues, in addition to
SHA's remarks, in the preparation of the final report.
These investigations have generated important information regarding the study area's history,
settlement, and archeology. The survey results have greatly expanded the Trust's archeological
database for Worcester County. The study is particularly useful since few professional archeological
investigations have been conducted within Worcester County. We appreciate SHA's contributions to
Maryland archeology as a result of this undertaking.
Vl-292b
-------
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
April 23, 1997
Page 3
Completion of Section 106 Consultation: We look forward to continued consultation with SHA,
FHWA, the ACHP, and other interested parties to resolve the project's effects on historic properties.
The consultation should invite participation of legitimate interested parties who may have concerns
about the various historic properties impacted by the project. In addition, the Trust will coordinate
with its Easement Committee concerning the project's effects on St. Martins Church.
Finally, we offer the following suggestions for enhancing the documentation SHA submits to
the Trust for review. It would be useful to have all the resources which are listed on the
Eligibility/Effects table illustrated and labeled with inventory numbers on the project alternates
mapping (enclosure 5 to SHA's recent submittai). In addition, it would be helpful for the
Eligibility/Effects table to note remaining acreage to be surveyed for each alternative. These items
would help facilitate our review of the submitted materials, particularly for large projects of this
scope.
If you have questions or require additional information, please call Ms. Kim Williams (for
structures) at (410) 514-7637 or me (for archeology) at (410) 514-7631. Thank you for your
cooperation and assistance.
Sincerely,
J. Rodney Little
Director/State Historic Preservation Officer
EJC/KPW
9700952
cc: Mr. Bruce Grey (SHA)
Dr. Charles Hall (SHA)
Ms. Rita Sufmess (SHA)
Ms. Renee Sigel (FHWA)
Mr. Don Klima (ACHP)
SHA Ihteragency Review Group
Mrs. Howard F. Verges
Mrs. Ricks Savage
VI-292C
-------
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
April 23, 1997
Page 4 - Attachment
MHT COMMENTS ON REVISED DRAFT REPORT
PHASE I SURVEY - US 133 FROM MD 394 TO THE DELAWARE LINE
1) The Abstract is still awkward in its discussion of sites and site components. We suggest
inserting the last paragraph on page 1, which specifies by site number which sites are
recommended as ineligible and which are recommended for Phase n work, in the Abstract.
2) It would be useful if Figure 13 included an identifying key or symbol for the inventoried
historic structures illustrated, since it is not possible to distinguish archeological sites from
structures on the basis of inventory numbers alone (both use a WO prefix).
3) We do not agree that sufficient information exists to determine the National Register eligibility
of 18WO216, the Nelson Cemetery. The report should recommend the site for Phase n
evaluation. As noted above, 18WO 216 is currently located outside the APE for the project.
4) For site 18WO197, the report presents varying recommendations for those portions of the site
within and outside the right-of-way. Based on the Phase I testing alone, we do not agree that
such differing recommendations are appropriate. Phase n investigation of the site as a whole
is warranted to determine its National Register eligibility.
5) The report should discuss the project's potential effects on the identified archeological
resources.
6) The report should note the acreage remaining to be surveyed for the various alternates (for
access denial properties).
7) The revised report provides better explanation for its designation of archeological sites and
isolated finds; however, we are concerned that the site and find designations are inconsistent
and problematic. These problems are partly due to the nature of the resources (i.e. - scatters
of historic artifacts). We would like to work with SHA to address these concerns through a
well directed program of Phase n research for the project.
8) The final report should be printed double sided.
Vl-292d
jf
-------
PROJECi
Maryland Department of Natural Resources;) ?\/pLQ;-:- :_.p"
! Tidewater Administration
Tawes State Office Building
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
William Donald Schaefer
Governor
jii iu
3 47 Aii ;3
July 6, 1989
Torrey C. Brown. M
Secretary
•-. ••••.
Cynthia D. Simpson ;7 ;/-'- ' -,-~,..p. ^ '"
Environment Management , -> ^"- '"I A-'.p
Project Development Division ^--<" • iu'.vM v'"
Maryland Department of Transportation .'' -
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Md. 21203-0717
Dear Ms. Simpson:
This letter is in response to your letter of request, dated
June 15, 1989, for fisheries information on streams within the
project area of Contract Ho. WO 668-101-170, U.S. 113 Berlin
Dover Road north of U.S. 50 to the Delaware State Line.
Table 1 lists fish species common to freshwater streams '
within the subject study area. Although not specifically
documented, white perch and herring probably utilize Church
Branch, Middle Branch, Birch Branch and Carey Branch for
spawning. No sampling for anadromous fish has been conducted on
these streams.
The Blackbanded sunfish (Enneaconthus chaetadon) has been
documented in Carey Branch one-half mile downstream from Rt. '113
crossing (Al Weshe, MD. D.N.R., Fisheries Division, personal
communication). This fish is considered rare and possibly
endangered in Maryland. ._
v_ lOo^-
Any instream work to be conducted within the subject project
area should be restricted from March 1 through June 15 to provide
protection for these species during there spawning period.
If you have any questions concerning these comments,
contact me at 974-2788.
Sincerely,
please
e,
Ray C. Dintaman
Natural Resources Planner
RCD:swp
VI- 293
Telephone:
DNR TTY for Deaf: 301-974-3683
-------
Table 1
Fish Species Common 'To Coastal Freshwater Streams.
1. American eel
2. Pirate perch
3. Bluespotted sunfish
4. Banded sunfish
5. Creek chubsucker
6. Redfin pickerel
7. Mosqui'tof ish
8. Yellow bullhead
9. Brown bullhead '
10. Pumpkinseed
11. Golden shiner
12. Bridle shiner
13. Eastern mudminnow
14. Margined madtom
15. Green sunfish
*16. Blackbanded sunfish.
17. White perch-• ----- :-. > •-.- . . .
18. Herring (alewife and blueback) . -..,',
* Considered rare and possible endangered in Maryland. .
Source: Tidewater Administration, Fisheries Division
house data.
- in-
VI-294
-------
Maryland Department of NaturalcRgsfliirces
Tidewater Administration
Tawes State Office Building
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Utvr.LUr;
Pi i "i " ' •*• ! '"
Is ' •
William Donald Schaefer
Governor
JAJI 23 2 23 ffi '90
January 17, 1990
Torrey C. Brown,
Secretory
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
Re: US 113 from north of US 50 to the"Delaware State Line.
Dear Mr. Ege:
This is in response to your letter dated 20 November 1989 for
finfish information related to the additional study area for the
above referenced project. In our 6 July 1989 response to the
original request, it was stated that the blackbanded sunfish
fEnneaconthus chaetadon) was documented for Carey Branch, one of
the tributaries which will be affected by the proposed project.
The occurrance of this fish species is considered highly rare in
Maryland and is listed as "... In Need of Conservation..." by the
Maryland Natural Heritage Program in DNR, Forest Parks, and
Wildlife Service.
I recommend that you contact the Natural Heritage Program at
(301) 974-2870 or write the agency to receive more detailed
information concerning the distribution of this species.
As stated in the 6 July 1989 memo, any instream work will be
restricted from 1 March through 15 June to protect this and other
resident fish species during their spawning period.
If you have any questions, please call me or Ms. Mary Ellen
Dore of my staff at (301) 974-2788.
Sincerely,
Elder A. Ghigiarelli, Jr.
Chief, Project Evaluation/Federal
Consistency Review
EAG/MED/mpd
VI- 295
Telephone: (301) 974-2788
DNR TTY for Deaf: 301-974-3683
-------
ROJEOT
ELOPHEH"-'
is N. Glendening
Governor
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Fish, Heritage and Wildlife Administration
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
John R. Griffin
Secretary
Ronald N. Young
Deputy Secretary
April 25, 1995
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Attn: Mr. Joseph R. Kresslein
RE: Contract No. AW 821-108-070, US 113: MD 394 to Delaware
Line - Worcester County, Maryland
Dear Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.:
The Maryland Natural Heritage Program database contains a record
for Seaside Alder (Alnus jnaritiaa) as occurring along Rt. 113,
approximately 1000 feet south of the Goody Hill Branch crossing.
Although this rare plant species is not listed in Maryland, its
protection is requested through minimizing impacts to wetlands in
this area. If you have any questions regarding this information,
please call Lynn Davidson at (410) 974-2870.
lobert L. Miller, Coordinator
FHWA Environmental Review
RLM:dec
cc: Lynn Davidson
ER# 95366.WO
VI- 296
Telephone: (41G\ 974-3195
DNR TTY for the Deafi 301-974-3683
-------
Parrts N. GUndening
Gavtmar
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Tidewater Admintanlion
Power Flam and Environmental Review Division
Taw«s State Office Building. B-3
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
May 9,1995
John R. Griffin
Secretary
Ronald N. Young
Deputy Secretary
Peter M. Dunbmr, Ft
Director
Joseph R. Kresslein
Project Planning Division
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
Dear Mr. Kresslein:
This letter is in response to your letter of request, dated March 13, 1995, for information or
the presence of finfish species in the vicinity of Contract No. AW 821-108-070; US 113: MD 394 tc
Delaware line; Worcester County.
The northern segment of your project, from north of the town of Berlin to the Delaware state
line, crosses the following streams:
Turville Creek and tributaries
Church Branch and tributaries
Middle Branch
Birch Branch and tributaries
Carey Branch
All of the streams listed above are in the Coastal Area sub-basin and are designated as
Use I waters. The fisheries concerns for these streams, including the presence in Carey Branch of th<
blackbanded sunfish (Enneaconthus chaetadon), a species in need of conservation, other residen-
warmwater fish species, and anadromous fish species have been previously described in our letter
to your office (dated July 6,1989 and January 17,1990). This information is still applicable for thi;
project.
VI- 297
Telephone: f4IO> 974-27X8
DNR TTY Ibr the Deaf: (410) 974-J683
-------
Joseph R. Kresslein
May 9, 1995
Page 2
The southern segment of your project, from south of Berlin to MD 394, crosses the following
streams:
Pocomoke River Area:
' Patty Branch
Purnell Branch
Campground Branch
Poorhouse Branch
Fivemile Branch
Coonfoot Branch
Coastal Area:
Marshall Creek tributaries
Massey Branch
Porter Creek
Goody Hill Branch
Catbird Creek
tributary to Beaverdam Creek
Poplartown Branch
All of the streams in the southern segment area of your project are designated as Use I
streams. Generally, no instream work is permitted in Use I streams during the period of March 1
through June 15, inclusive, during any year. When spawning by yellow perch may occur near a
project site, no instream work should be conducted during the period of February 15 through June
15, inclusive, during any year.
Anadromous fish survey data is not available for the coastal area streams in the southern
segment area. White perch (Marone americana) and herring (Alosa sp.) could potentially spawn in
those streams. White perch, herring, and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) have been documented
spawning in or near the listed streams in the Pocomoke River Area.
The Pocomoke River area streams could potentially support largemouth bass (Micropterus
3"\ chain pickerel (Esox. nigei), sunfish (Lepomis sjj.), and other warmwater gamefish
species.
Our files do not contain data on the resident fish populations which exist in the streams along
the southern segment of your project. It is expected that the perennial reaches of these streams
support resident populations of several warmwater fish species typically found in this region. The
spawning periods for the fish species likely to reside and spawn near your project site will be
VI- 298
-------
Joseph R. Kresslein
May 9, 1995
Page 3
protected by the Use I instream work restriction period (expanded for the presence of yellow perch
in the Pocomoke River Area) referenced above.
If you have any questions concerning these comments, you may contact Greg Golden of my
staff at (410) 974-2788.
Sincerely,
Ray C. Dintaman, Jr., Chief
Environmental Review Program
ii
RCD:GJG
/- 299
-------
OPME'-T
endirmng
Vfr. Xenje.il E. McCah*
Rummd. Khpper & Kahl
SI Mosher Street
Baltimore, MD 21217-4250 .
RE: US 1) 3 Roadway Improvements
Dear Mr. McCabe;
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Tawec Suie Office BaMnj
Annapolis. Maiyhud 21401
June 3,1996
John R. Griffin
Secretary
Ronald N. Young
Deputy Secroory
Ihe Wikflif s and'Heritage Division's database contains no records for rare species within 1 mile
of the northern section of the US 113 roadway study area (the section north of Berlin). Records
for rare species occurring withh^nnte'ofthe southern sectiom>f the-US-ii-3raadway study area
2rom north to south) include:
Area / Scieutific Name Common Name
State status Last reported
3avs Land '.t # Road
Sidens distr..idea
MyriophylUim humile
niariinna
Bidens discoidea
Carex gigantea •
Carexjoor;.
Porter Cre.V^c Area
Cleistcs diviricata
Ludwigia].u'.dla
Carex gjgs u.-ia
Area -
Massev.Bt
Antennari i solitaria
Fuirena pwuila
Iriglochin i
Swamp beggar-ticks
Low water-milfoil
Seaside alder
Swamp"beggar-ticks
Giant sedge
Cypress-swamp sedge
Spreading pogonia
Hairy hidwigia
Giant sedge
Single-headed pussytoes
Smooth fuirena
Three-ribbed arrow-grass
VI- 300
rare
endangered
rare
rare
endangered
threatened
endangered
endangered
endangered
threatened
endangered
endangered
198:
1987
1977'
198V
198?
198/
198-;.
198V
1987
1991
199r
199?
Telephone: ,
T»».TT> IH.CT
tA%n\ art*
-------
S-713-1996 9tB4.iMFROM RK/K TRANS. DEPT. 41B
Mr. McCabe
June 3,1996
Page 2
Pporfaouse Branch Area -
3*hynchosia tomentosa
Lupinus per.aras •
Galactiavolubflis
Centrqseipa virgmianum
Almis mariilaia
CardannTic longE
Hairy snoutbean
Wild lupine.
Downy milk pea
Spurred butterfly-pea
Seaside alder
Long s bittercress
endangered
threatened
endangered
rare
rare
endangered
Campground Branch fwithin the east Hnnt of corridor as marked on map) •
Bidens discoidea Swamp beggar-ticks rare
Pumell Branch Area -
^"Carexjooi-l
y Potemogetdnpusillus
V-Utriculiirii ?rflata
Platanthen;-/a,va
Leptoioni&'c.o'snaturh
Casfle HI* Ttoad Area -
Myriopb/il.nn hximfle
Xyris diffbrmis
Cypress-swamp sedge
Slender pondweed
Swollen bladderwort
Pale green orchid
'FalTwiiiigrasS
Low -water-milfoil
Variable yefloweyed-grass
threatened
highly rare
endangered
threatened
endangered*
endangered
rare
1987
1987
1987
1987
19911
1987
193;
1939*
190v*
192^*
199?
19SC:.
199?
. "Xocated directly along RL 113 within about 0.5 mile of Goody H21 Branch crossing.
"•These Hsiorical records are recorded from "Purnefl Pond, 1 mfle northeast of Snow RYU"
Surveys should be conducted within appropriate habitats in the corridor area and during the
properflooring / fruiting period for each, species. - Please send a copy of the survey results.to.^
Scott Smith. 2s the address above. The database contains no mfonnation regarding blac^-banded
sunfish am, ^^ere in this entire area, as SHA. had indicated to you. For further informat oi
contact Scott Smith, of the Wildlife & Heritage Division at (410) 827-8612.
Sincerely,
cc: Jonathan McKnight
Scott-Smith
Wayne T^ndaU
Lynn]
Database Manager
. Wildlife & Heritage Division.
VI- 301
-------
Glendening
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
July 8, 1996
John R. Griffin
Secretary
Ronald N. Young
Deputy Secretary
Mr. Kenneth E. McCabe
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
81 Mosher Street
Baltimore, MD 21217-4250
RE: Further information regarding US 113 Roadway Improvements
Dear Mr. McCabe:
I was asked to clarify my comments sent to you on June 3 in response to your request for
information regarding rare species near US 113. The numerous rare species listed in the June 3
letter have been recorded from within a mile of the project corridor and may occur within a 500 ft
radius of US 113, in the areas indicated previously, if the habitat is appropriate in those areas
within the corridor.
Otherwise, the Wildlife and Heritage Division database contains records for the following four
species occurring within a 500 ft radius of US 113:
Area / Scientific Name
Common Name
State status • Last reported
Goody Hill Branch (along US 113 within about 0.5 mi of crossing)
Alnus maritima Seaside alder rare
Campground Branch (near the eastern limit of corridor)
Bidens discoidea Swamp beggar-ticks
rare
1977
1987
Castle Hill Road Area (at old borrow pit east of Castle Hill Rd and south of US 113)
Myriophyllum humile Low water-milfoil endangered 1992
Xyris difformis Variable yelloweyed-grass rare 1993
Surveys should be conducted within appropriate habitats in the corridor area and during the
proper flowering / fruiting period for each species. Please send a copy of the survey results to
Scott Smith at the address above.
VI- 302
Telephone:
DNR TTY for the Deaf: (410) 974-3683
-------
Mr. McCabe
July 8,1996
Page 2
In our April 25,1995 letter to Mr. Joseph Kresslein of the State Highway Administration, we
reported only the Seaside Alder (Alnus maritima) recorded for this area. The locations for the
other three plant species have been added to our database in the year since our initial response to
SHA's inquiry.
Regarding the Black-banded Sunfish (Enneacanthus chaetodon). this information came from Ray
Dintaman of DNR's Environmental Review Program. Please contact him or Greg Golden of his
staff at 410-974-2788 for more information about this species at Carey Branch.
If you have any questions about this information, please feel free to call me at 410-974-3195.
cc: Scott Smith
Wayne Tyndall
•S Lorraine Strow
Lynn Davidson
Database Manager
Wildlife & Heritage Division
VI- 303
-------
/IDE
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
2500 Broening Highway • Baltimore, Maryland 21224
(410) 631-3000
ris N. Glendening
'ernor
Jane T. Nishida
Secretary
-:. v.q
Mr. Parker F.
Administrator
Maryland State Highway
707 Norjfcfi Calvert Street
Baltimore MD 21202
Dear Mr. Williams:
rj.
O
IT!
Secretary Jane Nishida received your recent letter regarding the US 1 13 corridor in
Worcester County, Maryland, and asked that I respond directly to you. Thank you for also
informing us of your agency's plans to expedite a project schedule, develop a draft
environmental impact statement, and convene a public hearing on this project on May 29,
1997.
The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) looks forward to reviewing
documentation developed for this project and providing additional assistance to your agency.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me
at (410) 631-3680, or have a member of your staff contact Mr. Nathaniel Brown at
(410) 631-3902.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Haire
Director
Technical and Regulatory Services Administration
MSH:nkb
cc: Jane T. Nishida, Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment
VI- 304
FOR THE DEAF (4}Q) 631-30O9
"Together We Can Clean Up"
-------
TECHNOLOGIES,
10 North Park Drive
Hum Valley. MD 2103C
(410)316-7800
Direct Dial Number
(410)316-7865
April 16, 1997
Mr. Bruce Nichols
US Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
304 Commerce Street, Suite C
Snow Hill, MD 21863
Dear Mr. Nichols:
Subject: Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form Evaluation
for proposed US 113 roadway improvements
KCI Job Order No. 01-96116D
The Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA) is proposing roadway improvements for Ui
113 in Worcester County between Snow Hill, Maryland and the Delaware state line. In Februar.
1997, your office evaluated five of the proposed build alternatives for farmland impacts for thi
project. I am enclosing for your records a copy of the completed Form AD-1006 for thos<
alternatives. Since that time, the federal resource agencies (US Environmental Protection Agency
US Army Corps of Engineers and US Fish and Wildlife Service) requested the MSHA to evaluat
additional alternatives in an effort to minimize environmental impacts. These new alternatives ar
variations of the alternatives for which you have already evaluated farmland impacts. Most of the nev
alternatives have reduced right-of-way limits and design speeds. Additional improvements have bee
incorporated into the TSM Alternative (Alternatives 2S/2N). As one of the MSHA's consultants fo
this project, I am forwarding to you a description of these alternatives, a two-page Form AD-100
for your review of the additional alternatives impacting farmland and a rationale for evaluation of th
site assessment criteria.
The acreages listed in Part m.C. "Total Acres in Site" of the Form AD-1006 for the dualize
alternatives were derived from MSHA calculations which do not include currently owned MSEL
right-of-way. The farmland impact calculations do incorporate farmland located within existin
MSHA right-of-way.
Using our geographic information systems (GIS) capabilities, our staff digitized the prime farmlan
sofls and soils of statewide importance from the USDA Soil Survey for Worcester County, Marylan
(issued May, 1973) and calculated the amount of impacted acreage by each alternative. Shown c
the following page are the results for each alternative:
Vl-305
KCI TECHNOLOGIES. INC.
ENGINEERS and PLANNERS
-------
TECHNOLOGIES
Mr. Bruce Nichols
April 16,1997
KCI Job Order No. 01-96116D
Page No. 2
Alternative 2S/2N (TSM
Alternative)
0.2
0.0
Alternative 2S-201 Median/60 MPH
20.0
10.0
Alternative 3S-20' Median/60 MPH
39.4
19.4
Alternative 3N-20' Median/50
MPH
42.6
31.5
Alternative 3N-20' Median/60
MPH
47.9
35.5
Alternative 3N-34' Median/50
MPH
47.9
35.5
Alternative 4N-20' Median/60
MPH
103.4
81.1
Alternative 3N/4N-20' Median/60
MPH (Combination Alternative)
107.1
68.4
Thank you in advance for your assistance. Please return the evaluated form to me at the above
address. If you have any questions, please call me at (410) 316-7865.
Sincerely,
Steve Linhart
Environmental Planner
pc: Don Sparklin, MSHA
Sue Rajan, MSHA
Lorraine Strow, MSHA
enclosures
VI-306
-------
-------
VII.
LIST OF PREPARERS
US 113 Planning Study
Snow Hill, Maryland to Delaware State Line
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
-------
;« rav!~r!mS T-w^vTfFlTSwrPii Rfvrflfl irainMffiPS ! T::;: w
• , '<,, ii.i., I i i i. > I.: 'I F i'' i n ': i" I I I ' !" '! ,,' • ' ,.. ii. i '" 11.,. i',.. . i... , i1 ! . ii. i,i .,' i. i' • II I! !' • .' »• ' ... .'
'•'•;*, 1i'i.1:1,H; ; [i; ;,: i : 'iV'-i"•.''';.• {i''i- ;';*;.,''.; H'^'fl',! •':.iii' ";
, •*• -
I ii
m
i ill iiii iii iiiiiii iijlll i
'i I >
lit: I
.ui, I jjl;l
Wiiiii iillli
' ••
ifczrrs
I
: ::: i 1,it '
IS' 'Wi
ii i; , Slif,
i i I
I
I i!
ti^.
i
Iiii : I,;
i : : : !,i idiniij :: : ly : , ;
;,: 1 ;:,:, j v • ^m, ^ ;
""""!• f '"f
1
liiEB
ill
'im ii
,i Li: nil; £,:
: i • is:
",.
i
j
i"
:irt[
. 'i'.',," il'l!!1 ii",,,. ,
.v^'^f
; i; liJi.....!.......!....!!! .11..;,.: ill ll
i 1, iiii ii ii ^ i Ii
i 1 liii! ; i| !!!! i=! iiii i Ill
! ! i I iiii
- ; ; i ii i it iii • ji: :i i i> ••;• :;•: ii «-i i-i • i -: ii ••« iii : iliiil ! : : - : : : ; : i ii- : ;•
J • ,'r" ,';i ,;,',' 'i', ;:'!., •-'{.:• ': '! 't , ..fl'r'ij} •' .*, '\ ! • i" i "; ii;: ,'i- : !f;-,> U" .• iiV i. .; , ' , "' ," :,;:!; ''•',':, ,';'
j ' ' '" !;J ., "!- ,'! ; '", ','• ; , ', ''''''i;1 '•; •• _\ ,: , ' ' ''/:', 'I',;"'11'1 , ;! ' ' \- ! , ' ' • :,:,''
i
:,ili,!.:,: i, I'viv i *;' :jii,,iiiiiBi,,ii.;.i.f!i 4;:^ iKifeliii w^iulidtUbUI .m ,;„ jtiJIIliiEi,,,,::;.:, J i:.:
,,,, ill,:;! li,,.,,il Hill !:!! v ,',',', h ,;„!;, I
-------
7S 113 Planning Study
HL LIST OF PREPARERS
Federal Highway Administration
Renee Sigel
Planning, Research and Environmental Team Leader
Mary Huie
Environmental Protection Specialist
Kelly Hutchinson
Area Engineer
Maryland State Highway Administration
Louis Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Cynthia Simpson
Deputy Division Chief for Project Planning
James Wynn
Assistant Division Chief Project Management
Joseph Kresslein
Assistant Division Chief Environmental Management
Sue Rajan
Project Manager
Lorraine Strow
Environmental Manager
Catherine Maher
Project Engineer
Richard Ervin
Archeologist
Rita Suffness
Architectural Historian
f
VII-1
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Rummel, Kiepper and Kahl Team
1. Rummel Kiepper and Kahl
David W. Wallace, PE
Partner - Transportation Planning
Andrew C. Parker (1995, 1996)
,<&=*-•-. Project Manager
Lisa Zeimer
* Project Planner.
Ernest G. Disney.,
Designer
Robert L. Shaffer
Designer
Kevin P. Hughes
Noise Analyst
Barry L. Brandt, PE
Noise Analyst
James A. Burnett
Transportation Engineer
Jennifer L. Harrington
Soils/Geotechnical Engineer
jxenneth E. McCabe, RLA
Environmental Scientist
2. Coastal Resources, Inc.
Betsy Weinkam
President
Charles Weinkam
Environmental Scientist
VII-2
-------
TS 113 Plannine Study
Gary Jellick
Environmental Scientist
Sarah Williamson
Environmental Specialist
3. Daniel Consultants, Inc.
Larry Green, PE
Project Engineer
4. A.D. Marble & Associates
Andrew C. Parker (1997)
Environmental Scientist
Other Consultants to SHA
1. KCI Technologies, Inc.
(Socio-Economic Analyses)
Patricia L. Hegberg
Environmental Planner
Steven Linhart
Environmental Planner
Nicholas S. Blendy
Environmental Planner
Richard A. Geidel
Cultural Resources Director
Margaret Bishop Parker
Senior Architectural Historian
Stuart P. Dixon
Senior Historian
2. The Wilson T. Ballard Company
(Air Quality Analyses)
Michael K. Kelly, PE
Air Quality Manager
VII-3
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Garrow & Associates, Inc.
(Cultural Resources)
Paul Webb
Senior Archeologist
Todd Cleveland
Architectural Historian
Thomas Lilly
Field Director
Gannet Fleming, Inc.
(Residual Waste Analyses)
Aaron M. Keel
Environmental Scientist
Scott J. Beeman
Environmental Engineer
David B. Smyth, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Chen Y. Yen, Ph.D., P.E., CHMM
Senior Chemist/Manager
Richard A. Pugh, C.E.
Environmental Manager
VII-4
-------
VIII.
DISTRIBUTION LIST
US 113 Planning Study
Snow Hill, Maryland to Delaware State Line
0
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
-------
HK
i! if I I i
i Ii!
s i i
i!i !!!
! I
• I; i.
il, ,,, In iliiiiil'i ,,» 'I, ,
•'•••:• -I1; iff1'
', -i iS
'.ii« S
iiiiiiiii i iii
•• ' V* ' S'
',: i L ::~
i
iiiiiiiii ;i,i
•! I i i i i
iiiii|l iiiiiii ! jiiiiii 'film
Li;;' ill; ; «i,[;; "I;,„;,;„';,,„ , 'Ill , ,;,,, J ;,| ^
i! I I'
IS i
il 1=
i,;,,ii ,,;,i!,",,,";!,ii ,;;'
il I'I; , ,1 S"!!:i
i'l'Siis!S
mitt iliiiiiiiiii 1! i ii!!! i ii i 11^
^^^^
-------
US 113 Planning Study
VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST
+ Federal Agencies
Mr. Robert J. Klumpe
State Conservationist
NRCS
U.S. Department of Agriculture
339 Revell Highway, Suite 301
Annapolis, MD 21401
Mr. Jonathan Deason, Director
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
U.S. Department of the Interior
Main Interior Building, MS 2340
18th and C Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ATTN: Ms. Danielle Agazzi
Region in
Mr. Roy Denmark
NEPA Program Manager (3EP30)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Mr. John Nichols
Habitat and Protected Resources
904 South Morris Street
Oxford, MD 21654
Mr. Donald Klima
Chief, Eastern Division of Project Review
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 809
Washington, D.C. 20004
Mr. John Wolflin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Delmarva Office
177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
ATTN: David Sutherland
Director
NOAA/CS/EC/Room 6222
Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230
VII1-1
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Commander
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
10 S. Howard Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Attn: NABPO-F
Ms. Michelle Gomez
Mr. Steven Graham
Federal Railroad Administration
Office of Economic Analysis
(RRP-32)
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
Regional Director
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Liberty Square Building
105 South 7th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Attn: Mr. Walter Pierson
State Agencies
Mr. William Carroll, Chief
State Clearinghouse
Maryland Office of Planning
301 West Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Local Governments
Maryland Office of Planning
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Budget and Fiscal Planning
Department of General Services
Department of Housing and Community Development
Department of Education
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Interagency Committee for School Construction
Maryland Historical Trust
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
Ms. Kathleen Fay
Maryland State Department of Education
State Depository Distribution Center
Public Depository and Distribution Program
Enoch Pratt Free Library
400 Cathedral Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
•4V
VllI-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
<
Mr. Ray Dintaman
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Unit
Tawes State Office Building, B-3
Annapolis, MD 21401
Mr. Elder Ghigiarelli
Water Management Administration
Maryland Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Mr. Steve Dawson
Non-Tidal Wetlands & Waterways Division
Water Management Administration
Maryland Department of the Environment
District Court/Multiservice Center
201 Baptist Street #22
Salisbury, MD 21801
Director
Public Affairs
Maryland Department of Transportation
BWI Airport
Mr. Fred Rappe, Director
Office of Systems Planning
and Evaluation
Maryland Department of Transportation
BWI Airport
Office of General Counsel
Maryland Department of Transportation
Maryland State Law Library
Upper Level Court of Appeal Building
361 Rowe Boulevard
Annapolis, MD 21401
Ms. Lynda Davis, Director
Library and Information Services Division
Department of Legislative Reference
90 State Circle
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
VIII-3
-------
US 113 Planning Study
County / Local Government
Worcester Planning Department
1 West Market Street
Room 1116 Court House
Snow Hill MD 21863-1070
Worcester Police/Fire/Emergency
1 West Market Street
Room L14 Court House
Snow Hill MD 21863
Worcester Department of Public Works
c/o Worcester County Commissioners
1 West Market Street
Court House
Snow Hill, MD 21863
Worcester Department of Parks and Recreation
6022 Public Landing Road
Snow Hill, MD 21863
Worcester Department of Economic Development
105 Pearl Street
Snow Hill, MD 21863
The Honorable James Barrett
President
Worcester County Commissioners
Courthouse
Snow Hill, MD 21863
The Honorable Robert Cowger, Jr.
Commissioner
Worcester County Commissioners
Courthouse
Snow Hill, MD 21863
The Honorable Jeanne Lynch
Commissioner
Worcester County Commissioners
Courthouse
Snow Hill, MD 21863
The Honorable James Purnell
Commissioner
Worcester County Commissioners
Courthouse
Snow Hill, MD 21863
VIII-4
-------
US 113 Planning Study
The Honorable Granville Trimper
Vice President
Commissioner
Worcester County Commissioners
Courthouse
Snow Hill, MD 21863
Citizens Groups
Mr. Robert G. Hulburd, President
CRASH
3122 Ocean Pines
Berlin, MD 21811
Mr. Michael Pennington, President
Friendship Community Association
10143 Three Penny Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
Mr. H. Clay Reister, IV, Vice President
Friendship Community Association
10577 Worcester Highway
Berlin, MD 21811
Mr. David H. Vomacka, Ph.D.
Woolpert LLP
409 East Monument Avenue
Dayton, OH 45402-1261
VIII-5
-------
-------
EX.
REFERENCES
US 113 Planning Study
Snow Hill, Maryland to Delaware State Line
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
-------
! ! i !! ! i ' ! !:: ! ] I : !
i! i! ! I i ii! i i I i i !!!!! !
-t til til! "'i1;' '< : ft :;i"i J^TTTf; - r. :" 4 I» ; -ft : - i ; if : I r^fS : ; f rr; fry : != ;': ^ * 1'H'1' ;:!+ i H:? bW
ill flit Mdui l i fi nil i:Li::j: :!:, •!& xii s Jllil : 4- 41- .ip,: iJiAfc a : ^Miiii: Lil i !& ,iis &4iii ! M
i^.;:ei;.vr:... ii
ii^^
IJSHHiE:^
iliijii;!! I ,,:: • "i-v " i,
Si:!!: :jl; ;:;„• «fci:i :; Lii£iii ! : iii!
-------
US 113 Planning Study
IX. REFERENCES
ACOE, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Environmental Laboratory,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
ACOE, 1995. The Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement - Wetland Functions and Values:
A Descriptive Approach. US Army Corps of Engineers New England Division. 32 pp. NEDEP-
0360-l-30a.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1990. "A Policy on
Geometric Design of Streets and Highways". Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
Berlin Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. 1993. Brochure. Berlin, Maryland: Cleary Design, Inc.
Brilglia, P.M., et al, An Evaluation of Concrete Median Barrier in Michigan, Michigan Department
of Transportation, 1983.
Claville, Judy. 1997. Personal communication. Worcester County Health Department. Snow Hill,
MD.
Coastal Board of Realtors. 1997. Listing Summary Report of Properties for Sale. Salisbury, MD.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. GPO
024-010-00524-6.
Davidson, Lynn. 1996. Personal communication. Annapolis, MD: MD Department of Natural
Resources.
Department of Geology, Mines, and Water Resources. 1955. "Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester
Counties Water Resources", State of Maryland.
Dintaman, Ray C., Jr. 1995. Personal communication. Annapolis, MD: MD Department of Natural
Resources.
Draft Environmental Assessment, US 113, Georgetown to Milford, Delaware Department of
Transportation, 1992.
Dupis, T., J. Kester, P. Bretram, Jr. Meyer, M. Smith/and N. Kobriger. 1985. "Effects of Highway
Run-Off on Receiving Water. Volume n." Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
IX-1
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1979 and 1983 "Hood Insurance Rate Maps for Worcest
County, Maryland Unincorporated Area". Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Manageme
Agency.
Federal Highway Administration. 1976. "Highway Runoff Water Quality Training Course Studei
Workbook." Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
r
Federal Highway Administration. Kobriger, N.P. "Sources and Migration of Highway Runo:,
Pollutants - Volume I: Executive Summary." Washington, DC. 1984. *"
Federal Highway Administration. 1981. "Visual Impact Assessment for Highway/Projects
Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Transportation.
Gannett Fleming. 1995. "Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment". Baltimore, MD: MD Stai
Highway Administration.
Hagar, Philip (planner). 1997. Personal communication. Worcester County Planning, Permits an
Inspections. Snow Hill, MD.
Heath, Ralph C. 1984. "Groundwater Regions of the United States." Washington, DC: US Geologi
Survey.
Hicks, Thomas, Memorandum: Use of Barriers on Two-lane Roadways -US 113 - Snow Hill t
Delaware State Line, Worcester County, Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highwa
Administration, 1997.
Hitchinson, K.E., Memorandum: Review of Proposed Modification to Draft EIS Alternatives - U
113 - Snow Hill to Delaware State Line, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highwa
Administration, 1997.
Kobriger, N.P., T.L., Meinholz, M.K. Gupta, and R.W. Agnew. 1981. "Constituents of Highwa
Runoff - Volume IE: Final Report." Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration.
Leedy, Daniel L. and Lowell W. Adams. 1982. "Wildlife Considerations in Planning and Managin.
Highway Corridors." Columbia, MD: Urban Wildlife Research Center.
Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development. 1995-96. Worcester County
Maryland Brief Economic Facts. Baltimore; Division of Marketing, Maryland Department ol
Business and Economic Development.
Maryland Department of Geology, Mining, and Water Resources. 1955. "Somerset, Wicomico, anc
Worcester Counties Water Resources." Baltimore, MD.
IX-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Maryland Department of Labor, 1997. Personal communication, Baltimore; Maryland Department
of Labor.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1996. Personal communication. Annapolis, MD: MD
Department of Natural Resources.
Maryland Department of Transportation. 1995. Consolidated Transportation Program-1995 State
' Report on Transportation FY 1995-FY 2000. Linthicum, Maryland: Maryland Department of
Transportation.
Maryland Geologic Survey. 1978. "Geologic Map of Worcester County." Baltimore, MD: Maryland
Geologic Survey.
Maryland Office of Planning, Maryland's Land, 1973-1990, A Changing Resource, Maryland Office
of Planning Publication 91-8.
Maryland Office of Planning, Maryland's Land Use/Land Cover 1990-2020 Forecast, Maryland
Office of Planning, 1992.
Maryland Office of Planning, 1991. "Maryland's Land 1973-1990, A Changing Resource".
Publication 91-8. Maryland Office of Planning, Baltimore, MD.
Maryland Office of Planning, 1992. "Maryland Land Use/Land Cover 1990-2020 Forecast".
Maryland Office of Planning: Baltimore, MD.
Maryland Office of Planning. 1994. "The Potential For New Residential Development in Maryland -
An Analysis of Residential Zoning Patterns". Maryland Office of Planning: Baltimore, MD.
Maryland Office of Planning. 1995. "Population Projections". Maryland Office of Planning,
Planning Data Services: Baltimore, MD.
;: Maryland Office of Planning-Planning Data Services. December, 1995. "Jobs-By-Place-Of Work
.;For Maryland Subdivisions." Maryland Office of Planning: Baltimore, MD
^Maryland State Data Center, http.//www.mop.md.gov.\, 1997. Worcester County Forecasts.
Maryland State Data Center. Personal communication. 1997. Worcester County 2020 Forecasts,
'revised June 1995.
Maryland State Highway Administration. No date. "Relocation Assistance - Your Rights and Your
Benefits" - Office of Real Estate: Baltimore, MD
Maryland State Roads Commission. 1958. "A History of Road Building in Maryland". Baltimore,
MD.
IX-3
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Maryland State Roads Commission. No Date. "Construction Record for Roadlife Studies'
Planning Survey. Baltimore, MD. r
McGee, H.W., et al., Effect of Highway Standards on Safety, NCHRP Report No. 37^
Transportation Research Board, 1995.
McGehan, Terry. 1977. Ocean City Engineering Department. Personal Communication. Ocea
City, MD t
McNabb, Tony. 1997. Personal communication. Worcester County Board of Education. Snow Hil
Maryland.
McNally, M.G., Merheb, Omar, The Impact of Jersey Barriers on the Frequency and Severity t
Freeway Accidents, Institute of Transportation Studies, 1991.
Michael, Edwin D. 1975. "Effects of Highways on Wildlife." Morgantown, WV: West Virgin!
University.
Morris, Harold, 1997. Worcester County Planning, Permits and Inspection Office. Person;
Communication. Snow Hill, MD.
Mower, Judy. 1997. Personal communication. Worcester County Commission on Aging. Berlir
MD.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 197, Cost and Safety Effectiveness c
Highway Design Elements, Transportation Research Board, 1978.
Parker, Gregory. 1996. Personal communication. Worcester County Commission on Aging. Sno\
Hill, MD.
Pruitt, Sue. 1997. Personal communication. Worcester County Health Department. Snow Hill, ME'
Portele, G.J., B.W. Mar, R.R. Horner, and E.B. Welch. 1982. "Effects of Seattle Area Highwa;*
Stormwater Run-off on Aquatic Biota." Seattle, WA: Washington State Department a
Transportation. >•
Rummel, Klepper and Kahl. 1997. 'Technical Memorandum: Research of Median Treatments o1'"
Rural Two-lane Highways". Baltimore, MD: Maryland State Highway Administration.
Schemnitz, Sanford D. 1980. Wildlife Management Techniques Manual. Washington, DC: Tht
Wildlife Society.
Schockley, Robert. 1997. Personal Communication, Snow Hill, MD: Natural Resource Conservatior.
Service.
IX-4
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Schueler, Thomas R. and John Galli. 1991. "The Environmental Impacts of Stormwater Ponds."
Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Seamons, L.L., Smith, R.N., Past and Current Median Barrier Practice in California, California
Department of Transportation, 1991.
Slater, Gary. 1997. Personal communication. Worcester County Assessment Office. Snow Hill,
MD.
Snow Hill Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. 1997. Personal communication (Debbie). Snow Hill,
MD.
Soil Conservation Service. 1973 "Soil Survey of Worcester County, MD." Snow Hill, MD. United
States Department of Agriculture.
Soil Conservation Service. 1996. "Prime Farmland Soils and Soils of Statewide Importance",
Snow Hill, MD. United States Department of Agriculture.
Souther-land, Mark. 1993. "Evaluation of Ecological Impacts from Highway Development."
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
State Highway Administration. 1995. "Alternates Public Workshop and Combined Location/Design
Public Hearing". Baltimore, MD: Maryland Department of Transportation.
State of Maryland. 1993. Annotated Code of Maryland, Title 5, Subtitle 7A (State Economic Growth,
Resource Protection, and Planning Policy). Charlottesville, Virginia: Michie Publishing Company.
Taylor, Wade. 1997. Personal Communication. Assistant Director, Worcester County Fire Marshal.
Snow Hill, MD.
Tiner, Ralph W. Jr. 1984. "Wetlands of the United Stated: Current Status and Recent Trends".
Newton Corner, MA: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tiner, Ralph W. Jr. 1987. "Mid- Atlantic Wetlands: A Disappearing Natural Treasure". Newton
Corner, MA: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Town of Berlin CDMA. No date. Visit Historic Berlin Brochure. Berlin, Maryland.
Town of Ocean City, Maryland Department of Planning and Community Development. 1994 Socio-
economic Profile 1994. Town of Ocean City, Maryland: Department of Planning and Community
Development.
Town of Ocean City, Maryland Department of Tourism. 1996. Ocean City Maryland 1996 Visitor's
Guide. Town of Ocean City, Maryland: Department of Tourism and Community Relations.
-------
US 113 Planning Study
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1992.1990 Census of Population am
Housing, Summary Tape File 3A.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1994. Th%i
Farmland Protection Policy Act. Snow Hill, MD: Worcester County.
US Census Bureau. 1996. "Latest Population Estimates". US Census Bureau: Washington, DC .
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988. National List of Plants That Occur In Wetlands: Maryland)
St. Petersburg, Fl.
Voss, Carol. 1997. Personal Communication. Brickhaven Adult Daycare Center. Snow Hill,
Maryland: Commission on Aging.
Wilson, John F. 1996. Personal communication. Annapolis, MD: MD Department of Natural
Resources.
Wilson, Susie. 1997. Maryland State Highway Administration - Office of Traffic and Safety.
Personal Communication. Baltimore, MD.
Winbrough, Phyllis, 1997. Worcester County Planning Permits and Inspections Office. Personal
Communication. Snow Hill, MD.
Winters, G.R. and J.L. Gidley. 1980. "Effects of Roadway Run-Off on Algae." Washington, DC:
Federal Highway Administration.
Worcester County Department of Economic Development. 1994. Worcester County Maryland.
Salisbury, Maryland: deary Design, Inc.
Worcester County Department of Economic Development. 1996. Community Profile 1996/97. Snow
Hill, Maryland: Worcester County Department of Economic Development.
Worcester County Planning Commission, 1989. Comprehensive Development Plan, Worcester
County Maryland. Snow Hill, Maryland: Redman/Johnston Associates. Ltd.
Worcester County Tourism Office. No date. A Guide to Golfing in Worcester County, Maryland
Brochure. Snow Hill, Maryland: Worcester County Tourism Office.
Worcester County Tourism. Undated. 'The Pocomoke River: Maryland's First Wild and Scenic
River. Snow Hill, MD: Worcester County, undated.
Worcester County Tourism Office. No date. Worcester County, Maryland-Yours to Enjoy Brochure.
Snow Hill, Maryland: Worcester County Tourism Office.
IX-6
-------
X.
APPENDICES
US 113 Planning Study
Snow Hill, Maryland to Delaware State Line
0
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
-------
1 !.,v V'-W ,' ;'"V<
STS-> •• :::-: r: Hr ' "I"1: * i!H::<: ! : *
fit,
—
j111' : iSfi! ' iS' .11,j ''>;r i ^jjt, jr*;, •.•(,'; ; ,"*$t'i$,tti jk.'? :;,,;;!,:::<: L^*^;,^ 'i' $
! I; , : til i iii^^viiLL/ iJkjiBii ill iiu^iiJuiLiiiiKiii: sSsi, :"
• in| i |,| imij i iiui,!,; inll
1,1:1 fc m :;:
f
i)if^i
•'&„&>• •:'.r,.'.}-,'r
,„: B,i I!,,! ; ill,,! L; ; niJiiL: : i,,,i i,: ;„;
'ivv^ii'i'.;!,,,,
it'll;; i
i 'I::1*! : *
TTr H;I :,; ;B;; ;;: ; —= w ;:! "r: : :r:=: ".r — :T; 'i :" ;;•! 15^;
I::: f ; iii::: il:!: :,:,: f
Vi'l1
I :
•ii! !i!
i i i''!*'"; ;T r!'»!il IT'!! ii »!:!ii ! *: !"1 i ! ! : : ""7 ! ' > i s
ii! Hi ij'tl,5; ',fi 'if" j .i* -i''!;'!;];:;1 i1 •'• sr ;,f,t''' 'J.iv; :>i|^ -5-f" ":i ilif,:';!
^.^il^li'ZiL'lU: ii; ^^.'iiLi!^: ylli
tiil^ '
-------
US 113 Planning Study
X. APPENDICES
Appendix A
Project Alternative Plates, at 1" = 400' Scale
Key Map - Alternative 2S-201 Median
Figure 1 Alternative 2S-20* Median
from south of MD 394 (Market Street)
to south of MD 12 (Snow Hill Road)
Figure 2 Alternative 2S-20* Median
from south of MD 12 (Snow Hill Road)
to north of MD 394 (Market Street)
Figure 3 Alternative 2S-20' Median
from north of MD 394 (Market Street)
to north of Porters Grossing Road
Figure 4 Alternative 2S-201 Median
from north of Porters Crossing Road
to north of Basket Switch Road
Figure 5 Alternative 2S-20' Median
from north of Basket Switch Road
to south of Newark Road. - Gunning Club Lane
Figure 6 Alternative 2S-20* Median
from south of Newark Road. - Gunning Club Lane
to south of Ironshire Station Road - Mason Road
Figure 7 Alternative 2S-20' Median
from south of Ironshire Station Road - Mason Road
to south of MD 818 (Main Street) - Germantown Road
X-l
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Key Map - Dualization Alternatives
Figure 8 Alternative 3S
from south of MD 394 (Market Street)
to south of MD 12 (Snow Hill Road)
Figure 9 Alternative 3S
from south of MD 12 (Snow Hill Road)
to north of MD 394 (Market Street)
Figure 10 Alternative 3S
from north of MD 394 (Market Street)
to north of Porters Crossing Road
Figure 11 Alternative 3S
from north of Porters Crossing Road
to north of Basket Switch Road
Figure 12 Alternative 3S
from north of Basket Switch Road
to south of Newark Road - Gunning Club Lane
Figure 13 Alternative 3S
from south of Newark Road. - Gunning Club Lane
to south of Ironshire Station Road - Mason Road
Figure 14 Alternative 3S
from south of Ironshire Station Road - Mason Road
to south of MD 818 (Main Street) - Germantown Road
Figure 15 Alternatives 3N & 4N Modified
from north of MD 818 (Main Street) - Georgetown Road
to north of MD 90 (Ocean Expressway)
Figure 16 Alternatives 3N & 4N Modified
from north of MD 90 (Ocean Expressway)
to south of Kepler Lane
Figure 17 Alternatives 3N & 4N Modified
from south of Kepler Lane
to Delaware State Line
X-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Appendix B
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form
Appendix C
Relocation Act
Appendix D
Index
X-3
X
-------
-------
Appendix A
Project Alternative Plates, 400-Scale
Key Map + Alternative 2S-201 Median
Figures 1 through 7
Key Map + Dualization Alternatives
Figures 8 through 17
-------
iii
: ! i
I I I
II I 'I II
IIIIIIIH
I I
I I
II Ill,,,,
-------
I INDEX OF FIGURES|
DELAWARE
STATE LINE
BISHOP
SHOWELL
MD RTE 90
BERLIN
US RTE 50
IRONSHIRE
BASKET
SWITCH
WESLEY
SNOW / j /«v
HILL
US 113 (Worcester Highway) PLANNING STUDY
From MD 394 (Market Street) Split to the Delaware State Line
KEYMAP FOR
ALTERNATIVE 2S-20' MEDIAN
From South OfMD 394 (Market Street)
To Delaware State Line
State
Highway
Administration
Scale : 1"-15,000'
April, 1997
KEY
MAP
-------
-------
Appendix B
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form
-------
^
-------
US 113 Planning Study
APPENDIX B
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form (Form AD-1006) and rationale for evaluation of site
assessment criteria were completed for and evaluated by the Worcester County Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) in February 1997 for the five build alternatives under consideration
at that time (TSM, 3S-341 Median, 3N-341 Median, 3N/4N Modified - 34' Median, 4N Modified).
Since then, additional alternatives have been added to the planning study and the number of
improvements associated with the TSM alternative have ben increased. This appendix includes a
copy of the evaluated February 1997 AD-1006 form and rationale for the original build alternatives
and the evaluated April 1997 AD-1006 form and rationale for the additional alternatives that would
impact farmland.
XB-1
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING page i
PART 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency)
N'mfj§fPf ^Improvement Study (Snow
Proposed Land Use
Highway
PART ii (To be completed by SCS)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Fohrnarv. 18. 1997
Hill-DE line) ^eaei?aTvlHgnway Administration
County And State
Worcester; MD
Date Request Received By SCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes, No Acres lrrisate
(If no, the FPPA does not apply — do not complete additional parts of this form). . yf D
Major Crop/*) j» /
tv****/) SoYJHBn u//nti*T fsw/ty
N»rnt Of tand Equation System Used f
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site ( AHH ' 1 ROW r-^qiH -ri
d Average^ Farm Siz
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Ot t-armiana AS uannea i
'Acres: #£ O&9 % . 2- / Acres: JL3*L 4TbaL&
Name Of LocaK>ite Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned Bs
S
*A nitHHrlo r>4= MSHA
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information ROW)
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important
Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With
Same Or Higher Relative Value^
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Iftrty&Z^ \
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)'
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Pan V)
Maximum
Points
Site A
115.0
0.0
73.4
*&*$
3rf ~V
*0~7
pr3
30
Alt.
3S
15 14
10
20
20
8
20
0
n/a ! n/a
SiteB
43.6
0.0
135.4
*T$. J1-
$9'ff
• /
3^5
<££*
Alt.
3N
14
8
20
0
n/a
n/a l n/a n/a !
10 ! 2 1
25 0
0
555
20 , 14 14
25 0 0
10 3
160 66
100 30
Total Site Assessment (From Pan VI above or a local
site assessmeml
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
160
66
3
65
Site C
61.1
40.9
122.7
//f' 7
?*•/
«»Ji—
jP" ^
B
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING page 2 of 2
/To be completed by Federal Agency)
Of Project
13 Improvement Study (Snow Hill-DE Line)
;ed Land Use
jay
(To be completed by SCS)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request
February 18, 1997
Federal Agency Involved
Federal Hiehwav Administration
County And State
Worcester? MD
Date Request Received By SCS
the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres imgated Average parms.ze
the FPPA does not apply — do not complete additional parts of this form). JS D / 7& G^
Crop/W -. J Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
£0f0ea*\. ^yX««*/ £fr''lG/' Acres: ofoO0® * Acres: ). ?s-5\ &** % /3
o'f Lan/Evaluation System Used / Name Of Local Si^e Assessment System Date Land Evaluatio/i Reujrne^ BySCS
LPSA- ^7^/f7
\ (To be completed by Federal Agency)
'otal Acres To Be Converted Directly
otal Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
otal Acres In Site (derived from planimeter calculation
/ (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
otal Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
otal Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
ercentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
srcentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
(To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale ofOto
\ (To be completed by Federal Agency)
sment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5lb)
%rea In Nonurban Use
erimeter In Nonurfaan Use
ercent Of Site Being Farmed
rotection Provided Bv State And Local Government
Distance From Urban Builtuo Area
listance To Urban Support Services
ize Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
reation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
wailabilitv Of Farm Support Services
m-Farm Investments
ffects Of Conversion On Farm Supoort Services
ompatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
\L SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
II (To be completed by Federal Agency)
,ve Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
;sessment)
XL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
t
cted: I Date Of Selection
100 Points)
Maximum
Points
IS
10
20
20
n/a
n/a
10
25
5
20
25
10
160
100
160
260
Alternative SittfRating
Site A Site B Site C Site D
0.5
0.0
"> 3.0
* ?
0
* OOO&
tjZ-^3
/O
TSM ' i
Alt 1
14 -
8
n i
i
n/a i ..i_
n/a ! i .. .... :
0
0 i
5 1 i
. 14 i
0
! 1 !
42 j i
: !
10 1 !
i « ;
1 52 •' !
. '/'/as A Local Site Assossmaru U5-iO?
Yes G No LJ
XB-3
jcuons on reverse zi
Form AO-'iOOG ••'SO-!
-------
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM AD-1006
RATIONALE FOR EVALUATION OF SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
7CFR658.5(b)
US 113-SNOW HILL, MARYLAND TO DELAWARE STATE LINE
February 1997
1. How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1 mile from where the project is intended?
More than 90 percent-15 points
90 to 20 percent-14 to 1 points)
Less than 20 pcrcent-0 points
Aerial photography and land use maps were reviewed and a field review of the site was conducted to determine
nonurban use within a 1 mile radius of the project area. It was estimated that 90 percent of the land is hi
nonurban use for all of the alternatives.
Rating: Alternative 3S-34' Median/60MPH-14 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative 4N-
34' Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH-14 points; TSM Altemative-14 points
2. Ho w much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use?
More than 90 percent-10 points
90 to 20 percent-9 to 1 point(s)
Less than 20 percent-0 points
Aerial photography and land use maps were reviewed and a field review of the site was conducted to determine
nonurban use bordering on the site. It was estimated that 85 percent of Alternatives 3S-34' Median/60 MPH and 3N-
34' Median/60 MPH and the TSM alternative border on land hi nonurban use and more than 90 percent of
Alternatives 4N-34' Median and 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH border on nonurban use.
Rating: Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH-8 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median /60 MPH-8 points; Alternative 4N-
34' Median /60 MPH-10 points; Alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH-10 points; TSM Alternative-8 points
3. How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the last
10 years?
More than 90 percent-20 points
90 to 20 percent-19 to 1 points)
Less than 20 percent-0 points
Historically, much of Worcester County land has been used for agricultural activities. Based on a review of aerial
photographs and land use maps, it is estimated that more than 90 percent of the land area for each of the build
alternatives has been farmed more than five of the last 10 years.
Rating: Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH-20 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/60 MPH-20 points; Alternative
4N-34' Median /60 MPH-20 points; Alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH-20 points; TSM Altemative-0 points
4. Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private
programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland?
Site is protected-20 points
Site is not protected-0 points
XB-4
-------
The Maryland Department of Agriculture has an Agricultural Land Preservation Program to preserve
sufficient agricultural land in order to maintain a viable local base of food and fiber production for the citizens
of Maryland. According to the Worcester County Office of Planning, Permits and Inspections, there are no
agricultural land preservation districts located within the right-of-way limits of the project build alternatives.
Rating: Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH- 0 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/60 MPH- 0 points; Alternative 4N-
34' Median/60 MPH- 0 points; Alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH-0 points; TSM Altemative-0 points
5. Criterion 5 is not considered applicable for corridor-type projects.
6. Criterion 6 is not considered applicable for corridor-type projects.
7. Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average-size fanning unit in the
county?
As large or larger-10 points
Below average-deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average, down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below
average-9 to 0 points
*
According to the Worcester County Natural Resource Conservation Service, the average farm size in Worcester
County is 176 acres. Alternative 3N-34' Median/60 MPH impacts 24 properties engaged in agricultural activity. Only
two of these properties are equal to or greater than the county average. Except for one property, each of the remaining
farm parcels is less than the county average. Alternative 4N-34' Median/60 MPH impacts 19 properties engaged in
agricultural activity. Except for one property, each of the remaining farm parcels is less than the county average.
Alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH impacts 20 properties engaged in agricultural activity. Along this
Alternative, one farm is greater man the county average and one farm is less man 170 acres, but greater than 85 acres
(half of the county average). Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH impacts 48 properties engaged in agricultural
activity. Six of these parcels are equal to or greater man the county average. Six of the remaining 42 parcels are less
than 170 acres, but greater man 85 acres (half of the county average). The remaining parcels are less than the county
average. To arrive at the rating, die scores of the impacted farm properties were added and then divided by the
number of farm properties impacted by the alternative.
Rating: Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH- 2 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/60 MPH-1 point; Alternative 4N-
34' Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH-1 point; TSM Altemative-0 points
8. If mis site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because
of interference with land patterns?
Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project-25 points
Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project-24 to 1 points)
Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project-0 points
Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH is designed to parallel existing US 113 in the southern study area. Farmland will
be impacted in the parcels adjacent to existing US 113. Accessibility to remaining farmland is expected to remain
intact with this alternative. For most of its length, Alternative 3N-34' Median/60 MPH also parallels existing US 113.
Most of the farmland impacts associated with this alternative will occur on the parcels adjacent to the existing
roadway. Alternatives 4N-34' Median/60 MPH and 3N/4N-341 Median/60 MPH are the only alternatives that will
bisect farmland parcels. The design of these alternatives (four lanes w/ a median) will create accessibility problems
on six properties for the current property owners. These parcels (tax parcel numbers 109,122,118,123,52and41)
are located between Showell and southern study area limits of these alternatives. Approximately 40.9 acres are
indirectly impacted
Rating: Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH- 0 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 4N-
34' Median/60 MPH-25 points; Alternative 3N/4N-341 Median/60 MPH-25 points; TSM Altemative-0 points
XB-5
-------
9. Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e. farm suppliers,
equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and fanner's markets?
All required services are available-5 points
Some required services are available-4 to 1 point(s)
No required services are available-0 points
All required services are available to the farms in the area for each alternative. Agricultural services are located in
Berlin, Salisbury and Snow Hill.
Rating: Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH-5 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/60 MPH-5 points; Alternative 4N-
34' Median/60 MPH-5 points; Alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH-5 points; TSM Alternative-5 points
10. Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as bams, other storage building, fruit
trees and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation waterways or other soil and water conservation measures?
High amount of on-farm investment-20 points
Moderate amount of on-farm investment-19 to 1 point(s)
No on-farm investment-0 points
Farms within die study area range from having a high amount of on-farm investment to no on-farm investment Most
of the farms appeared to have a moderate amount of on-farm investment in the form of chicken houses, irrigation
drainageways, bams and other outbuildings.
Rating: Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative
4N-34' Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH-14 points; TSM Altemative-14 points
11. Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to non-agricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support
services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms
remaining in the area?
Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-10 points
Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-9 to 1 points)
No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-0 points
None of the alternatives will reduce the demand for farmland support services. Many of the support services are
located in Berlin, Snow Hill and Salisbury.
Rating: Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 4N-
34' Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH-0 points; TSM Alternative-0 points
12. Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to
contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to non-agricultural use?
Proposed project is incompatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-10 points
Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-9 to 1 points)
Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-0 points
Secondary development around the US 113/MD Route 90 interchange associated with Alternatives 4N-34' Median
and 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH could be an ideal location for secondary development However, this area is
currently zoned for agriculture use, as is much of the study area, and would require a zoning change. Alternatives 3S-
34' Median/60 MPH, 3N-34' Median/60 MPH and the TSM Alternative are designed along the existing US 113 which
already has limited development It is the intent of Worcester County to l)"Encourage new development projects to
locate in or near the existing population centers and service centers (where planned) but also discourage development
XB-6
-------
of the rural areas of the county" and 2) "Maintain the rural character of Worcester County and its existing population
centers, small towns and villages (Worcester County Comprehensive Plan, 1989).
Rating: Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH-3 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/60 MPH-3 points; Alternative 4N-
34' Median/60 MPH-5 points; Alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH-4 points; TSM Alternative-1 point
Total Rating: Alternative 3S-34' Median- 66 points
Alternative 3N-34' Median-65 points
Alternative 4N-34' Median- 93 points
Alternative 3N/4N-34'Median/60 MPH-93 points
TSM Alternative- 42 points
XB-7
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture /-
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To 6e completed by Federal Agency)
PART HI f To 6e completed by Federal Agency)
Site A
Site B
SiteC
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
O,
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
0,O
C. Total Acres In Site (/^^'j C^M*^^^ r^id/«Xa.
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CON^ERSIJpN IMPACT RATING
*
I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
111 (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site A
Alternative Si tg Rating
Site B
SiteC
Site D
Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
37. Z
SS.Q
55:-
Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
o. o
. /
Total Acres In
a -or tvftw i
55^3^v>j .•'•'ii •• *>
sGfiW EVal
~78.O
x o
ii /.o
"••f^fi^"-!-''. '••
^QtalvAcres.;t?rime And Uriiiciue'garmjand ;•.• %'y^i* -f^^X''• jv^/fc^gtSa. ^Si'i
17tf
703,4
;Acres Statewide And^Local Important Farmland :>
PerpentageOf. Farmland lhg6:uhityQr Local G6vt.-Uri1tTo:Be Gcjnv^erted -A
n>Vytth'Saj^'eOf^^^^
y^.(To. be completed.by $C$).. La^nd Eyaluatiori Criteripn ... .j.; K.:«y,{;.^u;
•jVfiela^iveVaiuejDf FarmlandTo Be\ ConYe#ed{$caieofOfo***n->i:i;Vi:
is:
VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
;essment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
Mt. W-
Area In Nonurban Use
Perimeter In Nonurban Use
Percent Of Site Being Farmed
•2-0
2.0
Protection Provided By State And Local Government
O
Ala
Distance From Urban Builtup Area
Distance To Urban Support Services
n/A
A/a
Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
Z5
Availability Of Farm Support Services
JSL
On-Farm Investments
Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
O
T
Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
-LCL
SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
(To be completed by Federal Agency)
.live Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100.
83
j| Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
assessment)
/oo
160
"AL POINTS /Tofa/ of above 2 lines)
260
/Yd
/as
ected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes D No
D
-or Selection:
XB-9
-------
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM AD-1006
RATIONALE FOR EVALUATION OF SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
7 CFR 658.5 (b)
US 113-SNOW HILL, MARYLAND TO DELAWARE STATE LINE
April 1997
1. How much land is in nonuiban use within a radius of 1 mile from where die project is intended?
More than 90 percent-15 points
90 to 20 percent-14 to 1 points)
Less than 20 percem-0 points
Aerial photography and land use maps were reviewed and a field review of the site was conducted to determine
nonurban use within a 1 mile radius of the project area, It was estimated that 90 percent of the land is in
nonurban use for all of the alternatives.
Raring: Alternative 2S/2N-14 points; Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative 3S-20' Medan/eOMPH-
14 points; Alternative 3N-201 Median/50 MPH-14 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/50MPH-14 points; Alternative 3N-
20* Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative 4N-20' Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative 3N/4N-20' Median/60 MPH-
14 points
2. How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use?
More than 90 percent-10 points
90 to 20 percent-9 to 1 points)
Less than 20 percent-0 points
Aerial photography and land use maps were reviewed and a field review of the site was conducted to determine
nonurban use bordering on the site. It was estimated that 85 percent of Alternatives 2S/2N, 2S-201 Median/60 MPH,
3S-20' Median/60 MPH and 3N-20' Median/50 MPH, 3N-34' Median/60 MPH, 3N-201 Median/60 MPH border on
land in nonurban use and more than 90 percent of Alternatives 4N-20' Median/60 MPH and 3N/4N-20' Median/60
MPH border on nonurban use.
Rating; Alternative 2S/2N-8 points; Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-8 points; Alternative 3S-20' Median/60MPH-
8 pome; Alternative 3N-20' Median/50 MPH-8 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/50MPH-8 points; Alternative 3N-20'
Median/60 MPH-8 points; Alternative 4N-201 Median/60 MPH-10 points; Alternative 3N/4N-20' Median/60 MPH-10
points
3. How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the last
10 years?
More than 90 percent-20 points
90 to 20 percent-19 to 1 point(s)
Less than 20 percent-0 points
Historically, much of Worcester County land has been used for agricultural activities. Based on a review of aerial
photographs and land use maps, it is estimated that more than 90 percent of the land area for each of the dualization
alternatives and Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH has been fanned more than five of the last 10 years. Tne majority
of the improvements associated with the 2S/2N Alternatives would occur within existing SHA right-of-way.
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-0 points; Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-20 points; Alternative 3S-20' Median/60MPH-20
points; Alternative 3N-201 Median/50 MPH-20 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/50MPH-20 points; Alternative 3N-20'
Median/60 MPH-20 points; Alternative 4N-20' Median/60 MPH-20 points; Alternative 3N/4N-201 Median/60 MPH-20
XB-10
-------
7.
points
,sir - .-
4. Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private
programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland?
Site is protected-20 points
Site is not protected-0 points
The Maryland Department of Agriculture has an Agricultural Land Preservation Program to preserve sufficient
agricultural land in order to maintain a viable local base of food and fiber production for the citizens of Maryland.
According to the Worcester County Office of Planning, Permits and Inspections, there are no agricultural land preservation
districts located within the right-of-way limits of the project build alternatives.
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-0 points; Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3S-20' Median/60MPH-0
points; Alternative 3N-20' Median/50 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/50MPH-0 points; Alternative 3N-20'
Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 4N-20' Median/60 MPH^O points; Alternative 3N/4N-201 Median/60 MPH-0
points
5. Criterion 5 is not considered applicable for corridor-type projects.
6. Criterion 6 is not considered applicable for corridor-type projects.
Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average-size farming unit in the county?
As large or larger-10 points
Below average-deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average, down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below
average-9 to 0 points
According to the Worcester County Natural Resource Conservation Service, the average farm size in Worcester County
is 176 acres. Alternatives 3N-20' Median/50 MPH, 3N-341 Median/50 MPH and 3N-20' Median/60 MPH impact 24
properties engaged in agricultural activity. Only two of these properties are equal to or greater than thecounty average.
Except for one property, each of the remaining farm parcels is less than the county average. Alternative 4N-20'
Median/60 MPH impacts 19 properties engaged in agricultural activity. Except for one property, each of the remaining
farm parcels is less than the county average. Alternative 3N/4N-20' Median/60 MPH impacts 20 properties engaged in
agricultural activity. Along this Alternative, one farm is greater than the county average and one farm is less than 176
acres, but greater than 88 acres (half of die county average). Alternative 3S-20' Median/60 MPH impacts 48 properties
engaged in agricultural activity. Six of these parcels are equal to or greater than the county average. Six of the remaining
42 parcels are less than 170 acres, but greater than 88 acres (half of the county average). The remaining parcels are less
than the county average. Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH impacts 20 farmland parcels. Four of the parcels are
greater ten 176 acres. Three of the parcels are less man 176 acres but greater man 88 acres. Thirteen of the parcels are
less than 88 acres in size. Alternative 2S/2N impacts 3 parcels, all of which are located in the southern study area. One
parcel is greater than 176 acres. Two parcels are less than 88 acres. To arrive at the rating, the scores of the impacted
farm properties were added and then divided by the number of farm properties impacted by the alternative.
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-3 points; Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-3 points; Alternative 3S-20' Median/60MPH-2
points; Alternative 3N-20' Median/50 MPH-1 point; Alternative 3N-34' Median/50MPH-l point; Alternative 3N-20'
Median/60 MPH-1 point; Alternative 4N-20' Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3N/4N-20' Median/60 MPH-1 point
XB-11
-------
8. If this site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because
of interference with land patterns?
Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project-25 points
Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project-24 to 1 point(s)
Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project-0 points
Alternatives 2S-201 Median and 3S-20' Median/60 MPH are designed to parallel existing US 113 in the southern study
area. Farmland will be impacted in the parcels adjacent to existing US 113. Accessibility to remaining farmland is
expected to remain intact with these alternatives. Alternatives 3N-201 Median/50 MPH, 3N-34' Median/50 MPH and 3N-
20* Median/60 MPH also parallel existing US 113. The farmland impacts associated with these alternatives will also occur
on the parcels adjacent to the existing roadway. Alternatives 4N-201 Median/60 MPH and 3N/4N-20' Median/60 MPH
are the only alternatives that will bisect farmland parcels. The design of these alternatives (four lanes w/ a median) will
create accessibility difficulties on six properties for the current property owners. These parcels (tax parcel numbers 109,
122, 118, 123, 52 and 41) are located between Showell and southern study area limits of these alternatives.
Approximately 47 acres are indirectly impacted by these alternatives. Improvements incorporated into Alternative 2S/2N
will occur mostly within the existing US 113 right-of-way.
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-0 points; Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3S-20' Median/60MPH-0
points; Alternative 3N-20' Median/50 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3N-341 Median/50MPH-0 points; Alternative 3N-20'
Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 4N-20' Median/60 MPH-25 points; Alternative 3N/4N-20' Median/60 MPH-25
points
9. Does the site have available an adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e. farm suppliers,
equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets?
All required services are available-5 points
Some required services are available-4 to 1 point(s)
No required services are available-0 points
All required services are available to the farms in the area for each alternative. Agricultural services are located in
Berlin, Salisbury and Snow Hill.
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-5 points; Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-5 points; Alternative 3S-20' Median/60MPH-5
points; Alternative 3N-201 Median/50 MPH-5 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/50MPH-5 points; Alternative 3N-20'
Median/60 MPH-5 points; Alternative 4N-201 Median/60 MPH-5 points; Alternative 3N/4N-20' Median/60 MPH-5
points
10. Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as bams, other storage building, fruit
trees and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation waterways or other soil and water conservation measures?
High amount of on-farm investment-20 points
Moderate amount of on-farm investment-19 to 1 points)
No on-farm investment-0 points
Farms within the study area range from having a high amount of on-farm investment to no on-farm investment. Most
of the farms appeared to have a moderate amount of on-farm investment in the form of chicken houses, irrigation
drainageways, bams and other outbuildings.
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-14 points; Alternative 2S-201 Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative 3S-20' Median/60MPH-
14 points; Alternative 3N-201 Median/50 MPH-14 points; Alternative 3N-341 Median/50MPH-14 points; Alternative 3N-
20' Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative 4N-20' Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative 3N/4N-201 Median/60 MPH-
14 points
11. Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to non-agricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support
services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms
XB-12
-------
remaining in the area?
1 ?W,
Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-10 points
Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-9 to 1 points)
No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-0 points
None of the alternatives will reduce the demand for farmland support services. Many of the support services are located
in Berlin, Snow Hill and Salisbury.
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-0 points; Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3S-20' Median/60MPH-0
points; Alternative 3N-2Q' Median/50 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/50MPH-0 points; Atemative 3N-201
Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 4N-20' Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3N/4N-201 Median/60 MPH-0
points
12. Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to
contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to non-agricultural use?
Proposed project is incompatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-10 points
Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-9 to 1 points)
Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-0 points
The purpose of the roadway is to improve the safety for motorists. The potential for secondary development as a result of
the proposed roadway improvements exists; however, land use controls, questionable soil suitability characteristics for
development and the absence of public sewerage and sewer disposal facilities limit the potential for development in the
study area. Minor subdivisions of five dwelling units per property are allowed in land zoned agriculture (A-l). It is the
intent of Worcester County to l)"Encourage new development projects to locale in or near the existing population centers
and service centers (where planned) but also discourage development of the rural areas of the county" and 2) "Maintain the
rural character of Worcester County and its existing population centers, small towns and villages (Worcester County
Comprehensive Plan, 1989).
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-1 point; Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-3 points; Alternative 3S-20' Median/60MPH-
3 points; Alternative 3N-20' Median/50 MPH-3 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/50MPH-3 points; Alternative 3N-
20' Median/60 MPH-3 points; Alternative 4N-20' Median/60 MPH-5 points; Alternative 3N/4N-20' Median/60
points
Total Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-45 points
Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-67 points
Alternative 3S-20' Median/60 MPH-66 points
Alternative 3N-20' Median/50 MPH-65 points
Alternative 3N-34* Median/50 MPH-65 points
Alternative 3N-20' Median/60 MPH-65 points
Alternative 4N-20' Median/60 MPH-93 points
Alternative 3N/4N 20' Median/60 MPH-93 points
XB-13
-------
United Stales
Department of
Agriculture
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
301 Bank Street
Snow Hill. Maryland 21363
(410)632-0939
SOILS OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE
FOR
WORCESTER COUNTY MARYLAND
to 2 percent slopes rx *
to 5 percent slopes f~/*.
ACRES SOIL MAPPING UNIT
9,655 Fallsington Loam
31,135 Fallsington Sandy Loam
1,285 Fort Mott Loamy Sand, 0
7,085 Fort Mott Loamy Sand, 2
6,815 Klej Loamy Sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
1, 920 Klej Loamy Sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes
7,760 Lakeland Loamy Sand Clayey Substratum, 0 to 5 percent slope
4,790 Lakeland Sand Clayey Substratum, 0 to 5 percent slopes. /
867 Lakeland-Fort Mott Loamy Sands, 0 to 5 percent slopes i.^jg"
505 Matapeake Fine Sandy Loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes /^^C
275 Matapeake Silt Loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes jA* r
50,135 Othello Silt Loam^-G
16,260 Pocomoke Loam, drained
10,185 Pocomoke Sandy Loam,
905 Portsmouth Sandy Loam
6,825 Portsmouth Silt Loam
950 Sassafras Sandy Loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes, moderately er
2,620 St Johns Loamy Sand 5-fe
530 St Johns Mucky Loamy Sand £(j
1/86
A
The NaturalResourcss Conserve con Service
is an agency of the Deparene.it of Agriculture
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYES
XB-14
-------
-vv United States
j}} Department of
Agriculture
Soil 301 Bank Street
Conservation ,, Snow Ifill, Maryland 21863
Service (301)632-0939
PRIME FARMLAND SOILS
FOR
' WORCESTER COUNTY MARYLAND
MdA
MdB
MeA
MeB
MoA
MoB
MpA
MpB
MtA
MtB
SmA
SmB.
SaA
SaB:
WoA
WoB
WdA
WdB
3,645 Matapeake Fine Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
5,505 'Matapeake Fine Sandy Loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
3,275 Matapeake Silt Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
2,010 Matapeake Silt Loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
1,630 Mattapex Fine Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
615 Mattapex Fine: Sandy Loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
3,855 Mattapex Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
865 Mattapex Loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
4,560 Mattapex Silt Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
995 Mattapex Silt Loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
505 Sassafras Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
385 Sassafras Loam 2 to 5 percent slopes, moderately
eroded
7,435 Sassafras Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
13 ,,560 Sassafras Sandy Loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
2,310 Woodstown Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
515 Woodstown Loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
16,385 Woodstown Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
4,010 Woodstown Sandy Loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
XB-15
The Soil Conservation Se: -e
is an agency of the
United States Department of Agriculture
-------
-------
Appendix C
Relocation Act
-------
•$:•.
' irl l'irl".i
i i"!i ft
,3'1" 'i11"1' "i !;'
mnj
m
'. #•;
ii, ':
i :| iiJIn. :.'. !'C:i,i|i:
Tff t^pf
:= !:: ":
'•••&:•:.
i '! i I," ,',,'' ' '!' "' V
! '. ""* 'I " ' "l'1'!
:1;i Ii*
m
Vj:l: V*j!. ,1'I''',:<'i^4iM;.
1; IT
/I1 i:
! ;l i 1 : s;;:
I- s: - -; SET
,,, :, ',\
I ; !
a ; i,
]^ti3-£
i ,
i
r
M '
: 1 !! '
lip
I!
;,;;l
I-
^••iii
;
:;.,
I ii
-lit : i i-
!
: *|
.jlj'riii,;,-
:,|L
I f!
.*;
":'-.',"
-------
Revised: December 24, 1996
State Highway Administration, Office of Real Estate
SUMMARY OF THE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OF THE
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION OF MARYLAND
All State Highway Administration projects must comply with the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 USC 4601) as amended by Title
IV of the Surface Transportation & Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-17), the
Annotated Code of Maryland entitled "Real Property Article" Section 12-112 and Subtitle 2,
Sections 12-201 to 12-212. The Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway
Administration, Office of Real Estate administers the Transportation Relocation Assistance Program
in the State of Maryland.
The provisions of the Federal and State laws require the State Highway Administration to
provide payments and services to persons displaced by a public project. The payments include
replacement housing payments and moving costs. The maximum limits of the replacement housing
payments are $22,500 for owner-occupants and $5,250 for tenant-occupants. Certain payments may
also be made for increased mortgage interest costs and other incidental expenses. In order to receive
these payments, the displaced person must occupy decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing.
In addition to these payments, there are also moving expense payments to persons, businesses, farms
and non-profit organizations. Actual but reasonable moving expenses for residences are reimbursed
for a move of up to 50 miles or a schedule moving payment of up to $1,300 may be used.
In the event comparable replacement housing is not available within the monetary limits for
owners and tenants to rehouse persons displaced by public projects or available replacement housing
is beyond their financial means, replacement "housing as a last resort" will be utilized to accomplish
the rehousing. Detailed studies must be completed by the State Highway Administration before
relocation "housing as a last resort" can be utilized.
The moving cost payments to businesses are broken down into several categories, which
include actual moving expense payments, reestablishment expenses limited to $10,000 or fixed
payments "in lieu of actual moving expenses of $1,000 to $20,000. Actual moving expenses may
also include actual direct losses of tangible personal property and expenses for searching for a
replacement site up to $ 1,000.
The actual reasonable moving expenses may be paid for a move by a commercial mover or
for a self-move. Payments for the actual reasonable expenses are limited to a 50-mile radius unless
the State determines a longer distance is necessary. The expenses claimed for actual cost moves
must be supported by firm bids and receipted bills. An inventory of the items to be moved must be
prepared in all cases. In self-moves, the State will negotiate an amount for payment, usually lower
than the lowest acceptable bid. The allowable expenses of a self-move may include amounts paid
for equipment hired, the cost of using the business vehicles or equipment, wages paid to persons who
participate in the move, the cost of actual supervision of the move, replacement insurance for the
personal property moved, costs of licenses or permits required and other related expenses.
XC-1
-------
Revised: December 24, 1996
State Highway Administration, Office of Real Estate
In addition to the actual moving expenses mentioned above, the displaced business is entitled
to receive a payment for the actual direct losses of tangible personal property that the business is
entitled to relocate but elects not to move. These payments may only be made after an effort by the
owner to sell the personal property involved. The costs of the sale are also reimbursable moving
expenses.
If the business elects not to move or to discontinue the use of an item, the payment shall
consist of the lesser of: the fair market value of the item for continued use at the displacement site,
less the proceeds from its sale; or the estimated cost of moving the item.
If an item of personal property which is used as part of a business or farm operation is not
moved and is promptly replaced with a substitute item that performs a comparable function at the
replacement site, payment shall be of the lesser of: the cost of the substitute item, including
installation costs at the replacement site, minus any proceeds from the sale or trade-in of the replaced
item; or the estimated cost of moving and reinstalling the replaced item.
In addition to the moving payments described above, a business may be eligible for a
payment up to $10,000 for the actual reasonable and necessary expenses of reestablishing at the
replacement site. Generally, reestablishment expenses include certain repairs and improvements to
the replacement site, increased operating costs, exterior signing, advertising the replacement location
and other fees paid to reestablish. Receipted bills and other evidence of these expenses are required
for payment. The total maximum reestablishment payment eligibility is $10,000.
In lieu of all moving payments described above, a business may elect to receive a fixed
payment equal to the average annual net earnings of the business. This payment shall not be less
than $1,000 nor more than $20,000. In order to be entitled to this payment, the State must determine
that the business cannot be relocated without a substantial loss of its existing patronage; the business
is not part of a commercial enterprise having more than three other establishments in the same or
similar business that are not being acquired; and the business contributes materially to the income
of a displaced owner during the two taxable years prior to the year of the displacement. A business
operated at the displacement site solely for the purpose of renting to others is not eligible.
Considerations in the State's determination of loss of existing patronage are the type of business
conducted by the displaced business and the nature of the clientele. The relative importance of the
present and proposed locations to the displaced business and the availability of suitable replacement
sites are also factors.
In order to determine the amount of the "in lieu of moving expenses payment, the average
annual net earnings of the business is to b/e one-half of the net earnings, before taxes during the two
taxable years immediately preceding the taxable year in which the business is relocated. If the two
taxable years are not representative, the State may use another two-year period that would be more
representative. Average annual net earnings include any compensation paid by the business to the
owner, owner's spouse, or dependents during the period. Should a business be in operation less than
2
XC-2
-------
Revised: December 24, 1996
State Highway Administration, Office of Real Estate
two years, the owner of the business may still be eligible to receive the "in lieu of payment. In all
cases, the owner of the business must provide information to support its net earnings, such as income
tax returns, or certified financial statements, for the tax years in question.
Displaced farms and non-profit organizations are also eligible for actual reasonable moving
costs up to 50 miles, actual direct losses of tangible personal property, search costs up to $1,000 and
reestablishment expenses up to $10,000 or a fixed payment "in lieu of actual moving expenses of
$1,000 to $20,000. The State may determine that a displaced farm may be paid a minimum of
$ 1,000 to a maximum of $20,000, based upon the net income of the farm, provided that the farm has
been relocated or the partial acquisition caused a substantial change in the nature of the farm. In
some cases, payments "in lieu of actual moving costs may be made to farm operations that are
affected by a partial acquisition. A non-profit organization is eligible to receive a fixed payment or
an "in lieu of actual moving cost payment, in the amount of $1,000 to $20,000 based on gross
annual revenues less administrative expenses.
A more detailed explanation of the benefits and payments available to displaced persons,
businesses, farms and non-profit organizations is available in the "Relocation Assistance" brochure
that will be distributed at the public hearing for this project and be given to displaced persons.
Federal and state laws require that the State Highway Administration shall not proceed with
any phase of a project which will cause the relocation of any persons, or proceed with any
construction project, until it has furnished satisfactory assurances that the above payments will be
provided, and that all displaced persons will be satisfactorily relocated to comparable decent, safe
and sanitary housing within their financial means, or that such housing is in place and has been made
available to the displaced person.
3
XC-3
-------
-------
Appendix D
Index
-------
-------
175 113 Planning Study
APPENDIX D
INDEX
ADT (Average Daily Traffic) S-2,1-3,1-4, IV-1, IV-46
Air S-13, m-70, IH-71, IV-11, IV-14, IV-44, IV-67, IV-68, IV-114-IV-l 16
Accidents S-2-S-4, S-8,1-1,1-2,1-5-I-12, H-4, fl-9, IV-3-IV-6, IV-14, IV-117, V-l-V-15
Alternatives S-l, S-4-S-9,1-4, Ml, H-2-H-16, 11-18, EM9, H-21-H-23, H-25-H-35,
m-i, m-6, m-20, m-23, m-34, m-35, m-46, m-52, m-63, m-70, m-7i,
IV-l-IV-7, IV-9-IV-28, IV-31-IV-39, IV-41-IV-46, IV-48-TV-58, IV-60,
IV-61, IV-63-IV-68, IV-73, IV-74, IV-78-IV-89, IV-11 l-IV-117
Aquatic Habitat S-14, IH-32, EI-33, IH-68, ffl-69, IV-46, IV-57, IV-68
Aquifer IV-45
Archeology S-6, S-7, S-l2, H-2, HI-20, m-22-ffl-24, ffl-65, IV-36, IV-37,
IV-39, IV-41, IV-58, IV-62, V-5, V-6, V-15
Avoidance Alternatives H-6, H-7, 11-16, H-21, H-23-H-25, H-27, IV-1, IV-14, IV-15,
P/-26, IV-39, IV-41, IV-51, IV-57-IV-59, IV-61, IV-62, IV-64, IV-111, V-7-V-15
Business displacements S-6, S-7, H-7, H-24, IV-9, IV-10, IV-15, F/-17,
IV-18,IV-61,V-8,V-9, V-12
Carbon Monoxide IH-70, IV-11, IV-68
Churches S-9, H-6, 11-16, H-20, H-24, HI-7, ffl-8, IH-21, HI-22, m-72-m-74,
IV-10, IV-11, IV-16, IV-24, IV-32, IV-33, V-5
Coastal Bay Area ffi-7, EQ-13, IH-17, IV-13, IV-15, IV-22, IV-23, IV-25-IV-30
Community Facilities DI-7, IH-8, IH-11, IH-12, IV-11, IV-13, IV-15, IV-16, IV-22
Construction Impacts H-3, H-10, ffl-23, IV-13, IV-14, IV-17, IV-23, IV-28, IV-31.
IV-34, IV-35, IV-44-IV-46, IV-51, IV-53, IV-57-IV-62,
IV-66-IV-68, IV-72, IV-85-IV-112, IV-114-IV-l 17
CRASH S-3, S-8,1-1, Ml, M2
Cultural Resources S-4, S-8, IH-20
Culverts - Types and Location m-36, ffl-38, m-53, IV-46, IV-48-IV-51, IV-53, IV-57
Cumulative Impacts S-16, IV-26, IV-72, IV-91-IV-110
Design Criteria S-4, S-5, IV-3, IV-5
Design Speed S-5, S-9, S-10, H-19, H-21, E-23, H-25, H-27,
H-29, H-31, H-32, n-34, IV-5, IV-12, IV-73, IV-74, V-3, V-8, V-10, V-12
Design Year (2020) S-2,1-4,1-5, DM, IH-17, m-70, V-l
Employment S-15, DI-2, ffl-3, ffi-ll, ffl-12, IV-17
Environmental Justice M-6, IV-10, IV-11
Erosion and Sediment Control S-8, HI-31, ffl-64, IV-44, IV-45, IV-51, IV-53, IV-62,
IV-68, IV-115, IV-116
Farmland S-8, H-6, m-12, ffl-13, OI-21, IH-22, IH-28, DI-30, m-34-m-36,
m-46, m-53, m-59, m-67, m-68, ffl-76, m-79, IV-16,
IV-20, W-22, IV-25-IV-28, IV-31, IV-42, IV-43, IV-60
Fatalities S-2, S-3, S-8,1-1,1-2,1-5-I-11, IV-3, IV-4, IV-6, V-l
XD-1
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Fire companies TL-24, DI-9, DI-10, IV-12
Fish S-14,1-1, H-3, m-32, 01-33, 01-35, DI-47, ID-48, 01-52, 01-63-01-66,
DI-69, ID-70, IV-45, IV-46, IV-50, IV-51, IV-63, IV-67, IV-68, IV-116
Floodplain S-6, S-7, S-l 1, D-2, 01-34, DI-36, DI-38-ffl-44, 01-47-01-49,
DI-52, DI-54-m-58, m-60, OI-61, m-63, m-67, IV-50-IV-53
Geology DI-25, DI-26, 01-31, DI-32, IV-44, IV-45
Groundwater 01-36-01-39, 01-42-01-52, DI-63, 01-64, DI-66, IV-44, IV-45, IV-112
Hale Farm/Mariner Farm DI-21, DI-22, IV-32-IV-34, IV-39,
V-6,V-7,V-10,V-11,V-14
Historic Resources S-5-S-7, S-12, Ml, D-2, D-3, D-6, 0-19, 0-24, OI-8, ffl-13,
m-20-m-24, m-33, m-7i, m-72,01-74, m-77, m-78,
IV-31-IV-41, IV-61, IV-72, IV-73, IV-87, IV-89, IV-91-IV-111
Horizontal Alignment S-2,1-2, D-20, D-23-D-25, D-29, D-30, D-33, D-34, V-12
Indirect Impacts ffl-1, IV-10, IV-17, IV-23, IV-26, IV-42, IV-43
Lakes 01-32, OI-33, 01-64
Land Use IV-7, IV-10, IV-15, IV-19, IV-20, IV-22-IV-28, IV-63, IV-71
Land Use - existing S-5, S-ll, DI-1, 01-13-01-16, 01-28, 01-67, DI-71, 01-76, 01-77
Land Use - future S-ll, 01-17, DI-19
Lane Widths S-2, S-4,1-3, D-6, D-15-D-17, 0-19, D-23, D-29, IV-3, IV-33, V-3, V-4
Lemuel Showell House D-24, 01-21, DI-22, IV-32, P/-34-IV-36, IV-39, V-5
Level of Service (LOS) S-2, S-3,1-1-I-5, IV-l-IV-3, IV-74, V-l
Noise Analysis S-8, S-l3, DI-71, DI-75, IV-11, IV-15, IV-33-IV-38, IV-57,
IV-66, IV-67, IV-71-IV-91, IV-114-IV-l 16
Parkland S-12, DI-10, DI-33, DI-72, DI-79, IV-1, IV-13, IV-72, V-l
Permits : S-l, S-8, S-ll-S-14, DI-1, DI-3, 01-15, IV-15, IV-26, V-l
Pocomoke River D-l, DI-10, DI-15, DI-26, EI-32-DI-36, DI-69, IV-28, F/-29, IV-51
Police Services DI-9
Pollutants S-8, IV-45, IV-46, IV-50, IV-57, IV-66-IV-68, IV-115, IV-116
Ponds m-32, DI-33, DI-64, DI-69, DI-79, IV-28
Population S-14,1-1, D-l, m-l-DI-3, DI-5-DI-8, DI-15, 01-17,
IV-9-IV-11, IV-15, IV-19, IV-22, IV-24, IV-26, IV-27, IV-45
Prime Farmland Soils DI-28, DI-31, IV-42, IV-43
Property Taxes S-15, DI-13, IV-20, IV-34, IV-117, V-10
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species S-14, 01-42, DI-57, DI-63,
DI-66, DI-69, 01-70, IV-67
Rescue Services DI-9, IV-12, IV-16, IV-26, IV-52, IV-114
Residential Displacements S-6, S-7, D-5-D-7, D-l6, D-21,0-25, 0-27,
IV-7, IV-9-IV-11, IV-14, IV-15, IV-60, IV-61, V-8-V-13
Right-Of-Way- Proposed & Existing .... S-5-S-7, Ml, D-5-D-7, D-l5, D-l8, D-20, D-22, D-26,
0-28, D-31, D-32, D-35, DI-17, 01-38, IV-7-IV-13, IV-15, IV-19-IV-21, IV-33-IV-38,
IV-42, IV-47, IV-53, IV-57, IV-63, IV-66, IV-72, IV-117, V-3, V-6-V-14
Rivers .... S-ll, S-12, D-l, DI-10, DI-15, 01-32-01-36, 01-64, DI-69, IV-1, IV-28, IV-29, IV-51
XD-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Roadside / Safety Grading S-4, H-5, H-6, E-17, E-19, H-21,11-23,11-25,
H-27, H-29, H-31, n-34, IV-5, IV-66, V-3, V-4
Safety (see accidents) 1-1,1-5,1-11,1-12, H-l, H-4-H-6, H-9, H-10, H-14, H-15, H-17, E-19,
H-21, H-23, E-25, n-27, n-29, n-31, n-34, IV-2-IV-7, IV-14-IV-16, IV-19,
IV-20, IV-26, IV-27, IV-31, IV-42, IV-66, IV-72, IV-91-IV-110, IV-114, IV-117
Saint Martin's Church H-6, H-24, ffl-8, ffl-21, ffl-22, ffl-74, IV-32, IV-33, V-5
Schools Ml, ffl-8, m-10, m-72
Secondary Impacts IV-23
Section 4(f) S-l, ffl-1, IV-72, IV-91-IV-110, V-l, V-5-V-8
Shoulder Widths S-2, S-4,1-3,1-6,1-8, V-2-V-4
Showell Store .... H-24, ffl-21, ffl-22, IV-18, IV-32, IV-35, IV-36, IV-39, V-6, V-7, V-12-V-14
Soils m-15, m-25-m-3i, m-35-ni-53, m-59, m-67,
IV-23, IV-42-IV-45, IV-47, IV-51, IV-54, IV-55, IV-63, TV-112, IV-115
Specimen Trees m-67, IV-64
Statewide Important Farmland Soils 10-28, EI-30, ffl-3I
Storm Water Management ffl-33, IV-44, IV-51, IV-53
Streams H-16, H-17, H-19, H-21, H-25, n-27, n-31, n-34,
m-26, m-3i, m-32, m-36, m-39, m-40, m-47, m-48, m-55, m-64, m-67, m-69, m-70,
IV-29, IV-45, IV-46, IV-48-IV-51, IV-53-IV-55, IV-57, IV-60, IV-63, IV-67, IV-68, IV-116
Surface water IV-45, IV-46, IV-53, IV-115, IV-116
Terrestrial Habitat S-14, H-6, H-7, ffl-68, IV-57, IV-66-IV-68
Topography ffi-25, HI-27, IH-76, IV-44, IV-45, IV-73, IV-91-IV-110
Traffic, Existing S-l, S-2,1-1,1-3-I-5
Traffic, Future S-2, S-14,1-4
Traffic Control Devices H-4, n-lO-H-12, U-14, IV-7, FV-12, IV-20
Transpeninsular Line Marker IH-21, HI-23, HI-75, IV-32, IV-38, IV-61, IV-111, V-5
Typical Sections n-5, H-6, H-8-n-lO, H-15, n-19, H-23, n-29, H-32, IV-2, IV-3, IV-5t
V-2-V-4, V-8, V-10, V-I2, V-14
Underground Storage Tanks HI-79
Vegetation ffl-33, m-35-m-46, m-48-ni-53, IH-67, ffl-68, ffi-76,
IV-35, IV-63-IV-67, IV-73, IV-111, IV-115, IV-116
Vertical Alignment H-20, n-23-H-25, H-29, H-30, H-33, H-34
Vic's Country Store ffi-21, HI-22, HI-74, HI-79,
IV-32, IV-36-IV-39, IV-87, IV-113, V-6-V-9, V-14
Wetland Functions ffl-36, m-38-m-52, ffl-63-m-66, IV-53, IV-57, IV-62, IV-63
Wetland Delineation H-2, ffl-35
Wetland Impacts , S-l, S-6-S-8, S-l 1, H-6, n-7, IV-28-IV-32,
IV-53-IV-64, IV-68, IV-115, IV-116
Wetland Mitigation IV-31, IV-43, IV-62-IV-64
Wild and Scenic Rivers S-12, ffl-33, IV-51
Wildlife S-12, S-14,1-1, H-3, ffl-35, ffl-42, ffl-43, m-65-ffl-70, IV-63, IV-66, IV-67
Wildlife Habitat ffl-31, ffl-36-ffl-52, ffl-63, ffl-64, ffl-68, IV-57, IV-66, IV-67, IV-72
XD-3
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Worcester County S-l, S-2,1-1,1-2,1-4,1-12,1-13, H-l, m-l-OI-19, IR-22, IH-25, HI-26,
m-28, m-30, m-3i, m-33, rn-ss, m-45, m-70, m-79, iv-i, rv-io,
IV-12, IV-13, IV-15, IV-16, IV-20, IV-22-IV-28, IV-42, IV-116, IV-117
S-15, ffl-7, m-13-m-15, DI-17
XD-4
-------
-------
-------